Abstract

In spring 2015, a transgender man known publicly as Mr C joined a health-check company in Guiyang as a sales employee. The employment relationship ended after roughly a week. Over the next three years, this brief workplace episode moved through labor arbitration, labor-dispute litigation, personality-rights litigation, and appeal. By February 2018, appellate language had placed gender identity, gender expression, general personality rights, and equal treatment in employment inside the same judicial vocabulary. The case became one of the densest documentary nodes in the public history of transgender employment rights in mainland China.

This article interprets the sequence as a process of dual-track juridical translation. The first track centered labor-contract legality: whether the employer could establish a sufficient basis for termination. The second centered equal employment and personality rights: how gender identity and gender expression could enter questions of dignity, differential treatment, motive, and causation. Both tracks drew on the same workplace event while assigning different legal functions and evidentiary burdens to its facts. The labor track produced wage and economic relief. The personality-rights track produced more explicit judicial language around gender identity and expression. Together they transformed a local dispute into a record that lawyers, community organizations, journalists, scholars, international institutions, and later litigants could cite.

The article also proposes a reusable litigation evidence chain:

workplace_event → arbitration_record → labor_judgment → personality-rights_judgment → appeal_language → advocacy_archive → academic_citation → later_case_comparison

This model treats a landmark case as an accumulation of outcomes, concepts, evidentiary disputes, circulation, and later reuse. Its value lies in reconstructing how rights language enters institutions step by step and how later actors preserve and transform that language.

Keywords: transgender; Mr C; employment discrimination; equal employment; personality rights; gender identity; gender expression; legal mobilization; Guiyang

1. Why a short employment dispute in Guiyang deserves a case history

Histories of transgender life in China often follow surgery, medical classification, celebrity visibility, household registration, or community organizing. Employment provides a different institutional timeline. It asks how an employer converts gender expression into judgments about workplace “image,” how a probationary decision becomes a labor-law dispute, and how dignity and equality become judicial propositions. The Mr C case compresses these processes into a local dispute from 2015 to 2018, making it especially useful for institutional microhistory.

National research clarifies the setting. The 2016 UNDP survey conducted with Chinese research and community partners received close to 30,000 valid questionnaires and covered law, education, employment, family, health, media, and social services (UNDP 2016). A later employment study drawing on more than 10,000 LGBTI respondents found very low full workplace disclosure and substantial exposure to negative workplace treatment, with transgender and intersex respondents facing elevated risks (Suen, Chan & Badgett 2020). A national discrimination study likewise documented pressures across family, social-service, medical, educational, and workplace settings (Wang et al. 2020).

The case therefore operates at two scales. At the individual scale, one worker had to explain relationships among job performance, clothing, gender identity, gender expression, and managerial judgment. At the institutional scale, the Labor Law and Employment Promotion Law already contained equality and antidiscrimination principles, while concrete disputes still had to give those principles operational form (NPC Standing Committee 2007, 2018). Chengming Yang later made Mr C the center of an academic analysis of international labor equality, burden of proof, remedies, and Chinese antidiscrimination reform (Yang 2019).

Three questions guide this article. How did a workplace event in 2015 acquire the judicial language visible in the 2018 appellate record? What work did the labor-contract track and the personality-rights track perform separately? Why did a case with layered outcomes become a durable reference point for later transgender employment-rights debates?

2. Materials and method: separating procedure, proposition, and circulation

The source base has four parts. First, contemporaneous reporting from 2016 to 2018 preserves dates, hearing sequences, party accounts, claimed remedies, and reported award amounts. Key sources include China Development Brief, China News Service, Associated Press reports carried by the South China Morning Post and Taipei Times, AFP coverage, PinkNews, and a Chengdu Business Daily report preserved through a public reprint (China Development Brief 2016; China News Service 2016; SCMP/AP 2016; Taipei Times 2016, 2017).

Second, community and advocacy archives preserve the case as a litigation history. Common Language’s impact-litigation archive records the 2017 personality-rights action, the appeal, and the February 2018 appellate language. These sources are especially valuable for reconstructing how experts, lawyers, and community actors organized the concepts of gender identity and gender expression inside litigation (Common Language 2018, 2020). Their advocacy standpoint forms part of the historical record, while contemporaneous media, academic analysis, and later judicial materials provide cross-checks.

Third, legal and institutional sources include the Labor Law, Employment Promotion Law, later Supreme People’s Court materials on equal-employment disputes, and Guiding Case No. 185. The 2022 guiding case uses connection to the “inherent requirements of the job” as a central discrimination-analysis standard and reads the final open-ended structure of Article 3 of the Employment Promotion Law as capable of covering additional characteristics (Supreme People’s Court 2022). Later doctrine supplies a reference point for locating the institutional stage occupied by Mr C’s earlier litigation.

Fourth, the article uses scholarship on the case itself, Chinese LGBTI employment, legal mobilization, transgender stigma and social conditions, and queer organizing in China (Yang 2019; Chua 2019, 2022; Wang & Liu 2020; Hildebrandt 2013; Chiang 2018; Bernot, Yang & Davies 2025). This literature connects the individual dispute to labor markets, social organizations, rights language, and longer histories of gender knowledge.

The analytical unit is a case proposition card containing seven fields: event_time, forum, claim, evidence, holding_or_reported_proposition, record_time, and later_reuse. The card separates what happened, which institution handled it, what legal proposition was advanced, what evidence performed the work, when the record was created, and how later actors reused it. This makes source disagreement auditable and turns a simple victory/defeat narrative into a sequence of historically distinct propositions.

The second tool is the litigation evidence chain. Workplace events become arbitration records; arbitration becomes labor litigation; labor litigation generates unresolved questions that enter personality-rights litigation; appellate language enters community archives and academic work; later cases cite or compare the earlier record. Historical influence therefore appears as a chain of transformations rather than a single judgment date.

3. 2015: a brief workplace episode generates a long documentary life

Public sources consistently place the beginning in April 2015. Mr C, then in his late twenties, identified as a man and applied for a sales position at a Guiyang health-check company. Contemporary reports describe masculine clothing and presentation and indicate that the employer had encountered his gender expression during recruitment (China News Service 2016; Taipei Times 2016).

The relationship ended after roughly seven to nine working days. Reports count the interval differently, reflecting different reporting dates and ways of counting probationary work. A historical reconstruction gains precision by preserving that variation and relying on the shared core: April 2015, a very short probationary period, and dismissal before a stable employment relationship developed.

Two explanatory frames then emerged. Employer-side accounts emphasized performance, workplace image, and job requirements. Mr C and his legal team connected clothing, gender identity, gender expression, and reported workplace comments to differential treatment. China Development Brief recorded a statement relayed through coworkers that misclassified him as homosexual and connected that classification with fitness for a health-service company (China Development Brief 2016). Chinese reporting also recorded Mr C’s own distinction among assigned sex, male gender identity, and masculine presentation (China News Service 2016).

This stage created the case’s decisive translation problem. Everyday employment decisions often arrive in broad language such as “image,” “fit,” “health,” “professionalism,” and “standards.” Legal procedure asks for granular facts: when the employer learned about the worker’s gender expression, how sales ability was assessed, who made the termination decision, which statements reveal the decision process, and when evaluation documents were created.

Brown’s study of Chinese employment discrimination showed how appearance, sex, and other characteristics weakly connected with job performance could function as routine screening criteria in hiring markets (Brown 2006). Mr C’s dispute publicly translated “workplace image” into a transgender employment case. Arbitration and courts forced parties to separate job capability from gender expression and to attach evidence to each proposition.

4. 2016: arbitration turns a workplace story into a formal record

In March 2016, the Yunyan District labor-dispute arbitration institution accepted Mr C’s application. China Development Brief described the proceeding as the first publicly reported transgender employment-discrimination case to reach labor arbitration in China, and China News Service reported the filing soon afterward (China Development Brief 2016; China News Service 2016). The “first” label works best as a historical statement about the visible and searchable public record available to advocates and reporters at the time. Local disputes, cause-of-action classification, archival survival, and the recording of transgender identity all shape discoverability.

The arbitration hearing took place on April 11. Associated Press reporting described Mr C’s request for compensation and an apology and his claim that masculine dress and transgender status shaped the employer’s decision (SCMP/AP 2016). Reports on the May result describe wage relief for the short employment period while treating the employer’s performance explanation as the principal account of termination (GMA/AFP 2016; Reference News/Sohu 2016).

The arbitration stage performed three historical functions. It created a formal procedural record for a previously private workplace event. It required the employer to turn broad managerial impressions into performance materials that could be examined. It also required Mr C’s side to connect gender identity, gender expression, and termination through evidence. Legal-mobilization scholarship describes this process as a transformation of lived experience into rights claims and then into institutionally legible facts (Chua 2019). Mr C’s case shows both translations in a compact form.

The central evidentiary issue was motive and causation. Employers can present performance, probation, dress standards, or business image as ordinary managerial explanations. A claimant must then connect those explanations to the actual decision process. Recordings, relayed remarks, evaluation forms, document timing, and the authority of speakers acquire unusual importance. Yang’s later case analysis identifies burden of proof and evidentiary structure as central issues in Chinese employment antidiscrimination law (Yang 2019). The case thus converted a broad question about transgender protection into a procedural question: who proves which link, and what evidentiary force connects identity with adverse action?

5. Late 2016 and early 2017: the labor track establishes unlawful termination

After arbitration, the dispute moved into court. Around December 30, 2016, the Yunyan District People’s Court issued a first-instance labor decision. Contemporary reports vary in how they state the monetary award. Some report 843 yuan in salary plus 1,500 yuan in compensation; others summarize the relief at roughly 2,000 yuan (PinkNews 2017a, 2017b). Their shared proposition carries greater historical weight than any single number: the court found the employer’s termination evidence too weak to sustain the stated basis, granted wage and economic relief to Mr C, and treated termination legality as a distinct question from discriminatory causation.

That distinction is foundational. Unlawful termination asks whether an employer has a legally sufficient basis for ending an employment relationship. Employment discrimination asks whether an adverse action is causally connected to a protected or protection-worthy personal characteristic. Success on the first proposition leaves the second proposition with its own evidentiary work. Mr C’s litigation placed these inquiries side by side, which later made the case useful for discussions of partial victory, indirect victory, and proof thresholds (Yang 2019; Common Language 2020).

The labor track delivered concrete relief and generated a further question. Once the stated termination reasons carried weak evidentiary support, equal employment and personality dignity became available as an independent framework for interpreting the same event. That transition explains the importance of the later personality-rights action.

Later Chinese judicial materials developed more explicit structures for employment discrimination, including the relationship between a characteristic and the inherent requirements of a job, differential treatment, causation, and personal dignity (Heze Mudan District People’s Court 2015; Supreme People’s Court 2019, 2022). Viewed retrospectively, Mr C’s case sits at an earlier formative point when those structures were still being assembled through individual disputes.

6. 2017: personality rights advance the language of equal employment

Mr C then pursued a personality-rights route centered on equal employment. Common Language’s archive records a first-instance hearing on April 20, 2017, where the plaintiff connected equal employment, dignity, gender identity, and gender expression. Expert participation helped explain gender concepts and employment-discrimination analysis (Common Language 2020).

On July 26, the Yunyan District People’s Court issued its first-instance judgment. A Chengdu Business Daily account preserved in a public reprint reported that the court found the employer’s stated termination basis legally unsupported, found an infringement of equal employment rights, and awarded 2,000 yuan in emotional-distress damages (Chengdu Business Daily/Xintong 2017). Associated Press likewise reported that the court found Mr C’s employment rights violated and ordered payment worth about US$297 at the time (Taipei Times 2017).

This stage changed the case’s legal vocabulary. The labor track dealt with wages, termination, and economic compensation. The personality-rights track connected access to work with personal dignity. Equal employment became the bridge: one end attached to a worker’s opportunity to enter and remain in employment, while the other attached to equal treatment in social life.

That translation anticipated a broader development in Chinese employment-discrimination adjudication. Later court materials describe equal-employment interests as part of general personality rights and organize analysis around differential treatment, lost employment opportunity, causation, and fault (Supreme People’s Court 2019). Guiding Case No. 185 later used connection to job-inherent requirements to distinguish legitimate criteria from discriminatory ones (Supreme People’s Court 2022). These later materials locate the 2017 Mr C ruling at an early stage in the movement from abstract equality principles toward judicially manageable personality interests.

Haonan Yang’s work on Chinese employment antidiscrimination law highlights the relationship among individual compensation, public enforcement, and the wider public interest in a fair labor market (Yang 2024). Mr C’s case illustrates the point. The monetary award was modest, while the rights vocabulary generated by the case could circulate far beyond that award. Litigation functioned simultaneously as remedy and as a producer of public legal language.

7. 2018: appeal fixes gender identity and gender expression in the judicial archive

The appeal was heard in November 2017, and the final judgment arrived in February 2018. Common Language’s archive preserves a crucial formulation: personal gender identity and gender expression fall within the sphere of general personality rights; these interests deserve respect; and employment equality extends to treatment connected with gender identity and expression (Common Language 2018, 2020). The appellate result also preserved a demanding evidentiary threshold for connecting the specific termination decision with discriminatory motive.

The result has a historically important structure: normative language advanced while case-specific causation remained demanding. Both propositions belong in the archive. The first shows the judicial recognition of identity and expression as personality interests. The second shows how proof rules can limit remedies even when general principles expand. Accurate case history preserves both layers.

In August 2018, Mr C spoke at an event at the UNDP China office. Central News Agency reported that he continued to encounter employment pressure and had begun helping other transgender people who approached him with similar experiences (CNA 2018). This afterlife adds another temporal layer. Judicial language can change at one speed while everyday labor-market practice changes at another. Later national employment research found employer antidiscrimination policies relatively rare, while their presence was associated with lower levels of negative workplace treatment (Suen, Chan & Badgett 2020).

The case’s impact can therefore be measured through citability. Lawyer summaries, community archives, journalism, academic work, international discussion, and later litigation repeatedly embedded the Guiyang dispute in new institutional contexts. Legal mobilization produced vocabulary that later actors could quote, compare, and redeploy.

8.1 The labor-contract track

The first track asks whether the employer can establish its termination rationale. Evidence clusters around probationary performance, work capability, internal standards, document timing, and wage settlement. The legal relationship is familiar, and remedies such as wages and economic compensation are readily calculable. This track translates a managerial judgment about workplace image into a demand for a legally sufficient ground for termination.

It also changes the evidentiary landscape. When the asserted ground carries weak support, the relationship between identity and adverse action becomes more salient. Labor litigation thus supplies facts that can later support personality-rights analysis.

8.2 The personality-rights and equal-employment track

The second track focuses on the relationship between a reason and a person. Gender identity, gender expression, job requirements, managerial judgments, differential treatment, and emotional harm become part of one legal frame. Questions of clothing and appearance are translated into questions of personality expression and equal access to work.

Its most durable contribution is classificatory. The 2018 appellate language placed gender identity and gender expression inside general personality-rights protection. At that time, employment antidiscrimination statutes expressly listed other categories, while gender identity and gender expression entered judicial reasoning through general personality rights. General personality rights therefore operated as an interface connecting broad equality principles to a concrete form of life.

8.3 Identical evidence performs different jobs

A manager’s statement can test the authenticity of a termination rationale in labor litigation. The same statement can help establish motive in discrimination litigation. A performance evaluation can demonstrate work capability on one track and function as an alternative employer explanation on the other. The two tracks therefore assign distinct legal jobs to identical pieces of evidence.

This is dual-track juridical translation. The case advanced through repeated rewritings of the same facts into two legal grammars. Each rewriting generated a fresh piece of the public record.

9. An evidence chain explains historical impact better than a “first case” label

Public reporting often calls Mr C’s dispute China’s first transgender employment-discrimination case. The label attracted attention and gave communities a concise way to narrate a scattered social problem. Historical method can preserve that public label while adding a more durable object: an auditable evidence chain.

For the Mr C case, the chain has eight nodes:

  1. workplace_event — hiring, probation, and dismissal in April 2015;
  2. arbitration_record — filing in March 2016, hearing in April, decision in May;
  3. labor_judgment — the late-2016 court assessment of termination and economic relief;
  4. personality-rights_judgment — the 2017 equal-employment decision and emotional-distress award;
  5. appeal_language — the 2018 formulation concerning gender identity, gender expression, and personality rights;
  6. advocacy_archive — preservation of chronology and judgment language by Common Language and related networks;
  7. academic_citation — Yang’s 2019 treatment of the case through international labor equality, burden of proof, and reform;
  8. later_case_comparison — the 2019–2020 Hangzhou equal-employment litigation, the Dangdang dispute, and the later Supreme People’s Court guiding case (RFA 2019; Cornell LII 2020; Supreme People’s Court 2022).

This structure has two advantages. It separates the historical event from later commemoration, and it makes claims about influence auditable. A “first” label depends on the surviving public record. An evidence chain can be expanded when new materials appear while retaining the provenance of every existing node.

It also explains the importance of digital preservation. Chinese transgender legal history often survives across news mirrors, advocacy static archives, court sites, university databases, and academic repositories. Cross-platform preservation makes the case more resilient and more useful for later research.

10. Beyond the case: employment connects family, education, health, and documents

The Mr C case centers employment, while related research places employment inside a larger institutional network. A large-scale Chinese LGBTI employment study records pressures around recruitment, workplace climate, and disclosure (Suen, Chan & Badgett 2020). National attitude research maps a broad spectrum of public discrimination and shows distinctive stigma directed at transgender and gender-diverse people (Wang et al. 2020; Wang & Chan 2024).

Research with transgender adolescents documents bullying, neglect, and family pressure (Peng et al. 2019). A qualitative study of transgender women in Jiangsu connects identity disclosure, stigma, discrimination, and access to transition-related care (Yan et al. 2019). Later research connects school discrimination with mental-health outcomes and emphasizes environmental support (Spielmann et al. 2022). Research on transgender and non-binary people also documents family stressors and violence associated with gender identity and expression (Chan, Suen & Leung 2024). A systematic review places these findings within a broader pattern of minority stress, health-care barriers, and mental-health disparities in mainland China (Lin et al. 2021).

These sources locate employment inside a wider social and institutional domain. Education shapes credentials and job opportunities. Family acceptance shapes housing, mobility, and financial reserves. Medical access affects leave and documentation. Identity documents affect payroll, insurance, background checks, and workplace facilities. Social recognition shapes whether a worker can present consistently across these systems. Mr C’s workplace dispute sat at an intersection where several institutional histories converged.

Research on Chinese queer organizations adds another dimension. Hildebrandt describes adaptive relationships through which LGBT organizations operated within shifting political opportunity structures (Hildebrandt 2013). Wang and Liu show how legal mobilization can create public visibility through performance, expertise, and media circulation (Wang & Liu 2020). More recent work emphasizes quieter forms of queer organizing and communal care under tighter political conditions (Bernot, Yang & Davies 2025; Wang 2026). The preservation and reuse of Mr C’s case belongs to this organizational history as much as to courtroom history.

11. From Mr C to later cases: a denser judicial timeline

After 2018, the judicial timeline grew denser. In 2019, a transgender woman known publicly as Xiaoma filed an equal-employment action in Hangzhou. Media and Common Language compared her case with Mr C’s litigation, demonstrating that the earlier case had already become a reference point for new legal action (RFA 2019; Common Language 2020).

The 2020 Dangdang labor dispute generated another set of judicial propositions. The Beijing No. 2 Intermediate People’s Court supported reinstatement after finding the termination unlawful and urged respect for the employee’s legally registered female identity. The dispute involved medical leave, privacy around surgery, workplace facilities, and relationships with colleagues (Cornell LII 2020). It provides a productive comparison with Mr C. The Guiyang case arose during probation, with gender expression and identity documents pulling in different directions. Dangdang involved a long-term employee who had completed legal gender-marker change. Together the cases show that transgender employment issues can emerge at recruitment, probation, dress, medical leave, termination, reinstatement, facilities, and everyday workplace interaction.

The Supreme People’s Court’s 2022 Guiding Case No. 185 then supplied a more explicit standard around the “inherent requirements of the job” (Supreme People’s Court 2022). The guiding case concerned regional discrimination, yet its analysis offers a broader framework for evaluating personal characteristics and employment criteria. Reading the 2015–2018 Mr C litigation alongside the 2022 guiding case reveals institutional development: early claims relied heavily on general personality rights and broad equality principles to carry unfamiliar disputes into court; later judicial materials broke discrimination analysis into more explicit elements.

This chronology shows why the original context of early cases matters. Later doctrine can make an earlier innovation appear routine. In its own moment, litigants and supporters had to create legal language, evidentiary strategies, expert explanations, and public attention. The archive makes that institutional work visible.

12. Counterevidence and limits

Public sources differ slightly on the number of workdays, the monetary description of arbitration and court relief, and the scope implied by “first case” labels. This article privileges propositions supported across multiple records and preserves source-specific numbers only where their provenance is clear. Version differences therefore remain part of the archive.

The two-track model also preserves the distinction between termination legality and discriminatory causation. A finding on the contractual basis for dismissal performs one legal task; a finding about gender identity, gender expression, dignity, motive, and equal employment performs another. The history becomes more accurate when both tracks retain their own evidentiary structure.

Contemporaneous media and advocacy organizations used “first case” language to make the dispute publicly recognizable. This article records that historical positioning with its discoverability boundary. Private settlements, local arbitrations, older classification practices, and uneven digitization can alter any absolute chronology of firstness.

The language of the case is also period-specific. Sources from 2016–2018 use several labels for transition, transgender identity, and gender expression. The present article uses current, stable explanatory language while preserving source titles and legally significant historical terms. Chiang’s histories of sexological and trans vocabularies in modern China provide a broader reason for this layered reading (Chiang 2018, 2021).

Finally, Mr C’s litigation represents one institutional interface. National surveys and later studies show that transgender people also encounter pressures in education, family life, health care, housing, documentation, and broader social recognition. Case history gains explanatory power when the case remains a specific pathway through that wider field (Lin et al. 2021; Spielmann et al. 2022; Chan, Suen & Leung 2024).

Conclusion

The historical significance of the Guiyang Mr C case comes from a three-year sequence of institutional translations. A brief employment relationship in 2015 generated workplace facts. Arbitration in 2016 converted those facts into wages, termination reasons, and evidence. Labor litigation later that year produced concrete relief on termination legality. Personality-rights and equal-employment proceedings in 2017–2018 then placed gender identity, gender expression, dignity, and differential treatment into a clearer judicial vocabulary. Community archives, scholarship, and later cases continued to reuse the record (Yang 2019; Common Language 2018, 2020).

Dual-track juridical translation explains the mechanism. The labor-contract track and the personality-rights/equal-employment track shared workplace facts while asking different questions. One track tested the employer’s termination basis and generated economic relief. The other translated identity and expression into personality-rights and employment-equality language. Their parallel development made the case simultaneously a node in labor-law history and transgender public history.

The litigation evidence chain explains durability. Event, arbitration, judgment, appeal, advocacy archive, academic citation, and later case comparison created a reusable path through the record. Preserving these intermediate layers matters because legal concepts often acquire new meanings as they move between institutions.

Later Hangzhou litigation, the Dangdang dispute, and Guiding Case No. 185 show a denser field of equal-employment causes of action, standards, and judicial language. Looking back to Guiyang makes the earlier interface-building visible. The Mr C case thus offers a precisely located historical cross-section of how transgender life entered the grammars of labor law, personality rights, and equal employment in mainland China.

References

  1. Chengming Yang. 2019. “The Implementation of International Law on the Equal Right of Labor of Transgender Minorities in China: Revisiting the Mr. C. Case.” Chinese Journal of International Law 18(1): 179–192. https://academic.oup.com/chinesejil/article-abstract/18/1/179/5479576
  2. Yiu Tung Suen, Randolph C. H. Chan, and M. V. Lee Badgett. 2020. “The Experiences of Sexual and Gender Minorities in Employment: Evidence from a Large-scale Survey of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex People in China.” The China Quarterly. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/china-quarterly/article/abs/experiences-of-sexual-and-gender-minorities-in-employment-evidence-from-a-largescale-survey-of-lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender-and-intersex-people-in-china/44E502F55680C6C50DDACB3BDA5F700B
  3. Yuanyuan Wang et al. 2020. “Mapping out a Spectrum of the Chinese Public’s Discrimination toward the LGBT Community: Results from a National Survey.” BMC Public Health. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32397988/
  4. K. Peng et al. 2019. “Self-reported Rates of Abuse, Neglect, and Bullying Experienced by Transgender and Gender-Nonbinary Adolescents in China.” JAMA Network Open. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.11058
  5. Zi-Han Yan et al. 2019. “Identity, Stigma, and HIV Risk among Transgender Women: A Qualitative Study in Jiangsu Province, China.” Infectious Diseases of Poverty. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40249-019-0606-9
  6. Julia Spielmann et al. 2022. “Mental Health Contributors Among Transgender People in a Non-WEIRD Society: Evidence From China.” Social Psychological and Personality Science. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/19485506211039388
  7. Randolph C. H. Chan, Yiu Tung Suen, and J. S. Y. Leung. 2024. “Gender Identity Differences in the Experiences of Family Stressors and Violence among Transgender and Non-binary Individuals in China.” Family Process. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/famp.12958
  8. Lynette J. Chua. 2019. “Legal Mobilization and Authoritarianism.” Annual Review of Law and Social Science 15: 355–376. https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-101518-043026
  9. Lynette J. Chua. 2022. “LGBTQ Rights Mobilization and Authoritarianism.” In Legal Mobilization for Human Rights. Oxford University Press. https://academic.oup.com/book/41941/chapter-abstract/355045221
  10. Di Wang and Sida Liu. 2020. “Performing Artivism: Feminists, Lawyers, and Online Legal Mobilization in China.” Law & Social Inquiry 45(3): 678–705. https://doi.org/10.1017/lsi.2019.64
  11. Ronald C. Brown. 2006. “China’s Employment Discrimination Laws during Economic Transition.” Columbia Journal of Asian Law 19(2). https://journals.library.columbia.edu/index.php/cjal/article/view/3250
  12. Haonan Yang. 2023. “Dilemma of Employment Discrimination against American LGBT Employees and Its Judicial Response from the Perspective of China.” Labor History 64(5): 514–527. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0023656X.2023.2225428
  13. Haonan Yang. 2024. “The Social Public Interest in China’s Employment Anti-discrimination Laws and Its Realisation Paths.” The International Journal of Human Rights 28(6): 912–935. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13642987.2024.2333534
  14. Timothy Hildebrandt. 2013. Social Organizations and the Authoritarian State in China. Cambridge University Press. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/social-organizations-and-the-authoritarian-state-in-china/FB004059F8F20232B87F9CDC854AD31D
  15. Howard Chiang. 2018. After Eunuchs: Science, Medicine, and the Transformation of Sex in Modern China. Columbia University Press. https://cup.columbia.edu/book/after-eunuchs/9780231546331/
  16. Howard Chiang. 2021. Transtopia in the Sinophone Pacific. Columbia University Press. https://cup.columbia.edu/book/transtopia-in-the-sinophone-pacific/9780231190961/
  17. Ausma Bernot, Fan Yang, and Sara E. Davies. 2025. “‘The Glowing Fireflies’: Invisible Activism under China’s Queer Necropolitics.” Convergence 31(3): 990–1008. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/13548565241288466
  18. Stephanie Yingyi Wang. 2026. “Decolonizing Politics of (In)visibility and LGBT Rights—Being Queer/Tongzhi in China’s ‘New Normal’.” Sexualities. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/13634607261417775
  19. Iris Yili Wang and Randolph C. H. Chan. 2024. “The Cultural Underpinnings of Transnegativity: Understanding the Role of Traditionality and Modernity in the Contemporary Chinese Context.” Current Psychology 43: 33252–33264. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12144-024-06825-5
  20. Yezhe Lin et al. 2021. “The Mental Health of Transgender and Gender Non-conforming People in China: A Systematic Review.” The Lancet Public Health 6(12): e954–e969. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34838199/
  21. She et al. 2022. “Mental Health Service Utilisation among Transgender Women Sex Workers Who Are at Risk of Mental Health Problems in Shenyang, China.” Health & Social Care in the Community. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hsc.13501
  22. Jiaxin He et al. 2026. “Disparities in Healthcare Services and Gender-Affirming Hormone Therapy Among Chinese Transgender Men by Age, Education, Economy, and Region.” Transgender Health. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/26884887261431681
  23. Hongwei Bao. 2018. Queer Comrades: Gay Identity and Tongzhi Activism in Postsocialist China. NIAS Press. https://nottingham-repository.worktribe.com/output/1480891/queer-comrades-gay-identity-and-tongzhi-activism-in-postsocialist-china
  24. 全国人民代表大会常务委员会. 2018. 《中华人民共和国劳动法》. https://www.npc.gov.cn/c2/c30834/201905/t20190521_296651.html
  25. 全国人民代表大会常务委员会. 2007/2015. 《中华人民共和国就业促进法》. https://www.npc.gov.cn/npc/c2/c183/c198/201905/t20190522_27234.html
  26. United Nations OHCHR. “International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Articles 6–7.” https://2covenants.ohchr.org/About-ICESCR.html
  27. 上海市发展和改革委员会. 《劳动者享有平等就业和自主择业的权利》. https://fgw.sh.gov.cn/ys-laogong-1.2.2.1/
  28. 最高人民法院. 2022. 《指导案例185号：闫佳琳诉浙江喜来登度假村有限公司平等就业权纠纷案》. https://www.court.gov.cn/fabu/xiangqing/364691.html
  29. 菏泽市牡丹区人民法院. 2015. 《反就业歧视：司法审查的识别路径及立法完善建议》. https://www.sdcourt.gov.cn/hzmdqfy/400900/400865/1251689/index.html
  30. 最高人民法院. 2019. 《杭州互联网法院宣判一起平等就业权纠纷案》. https://www.court.gov.cn/zixun/xiangqing/203171.html
  31. UNDP. 2014. Being LGBT in Asia: China Country Report. https://www.undp.org/china/publications/being-lgbt-asia-china-country-report
  32. UNDP. 2016. Being LGBTI in China: A National Survey on Social Attitudes towards Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Gender Expression. https://www.undp.org/china/publications/being-lgbti-china
  33. China Development Brief. 2016. “First Transgender Employment Discrimination Case to Go to Arbitration.” https://chinadevelopmentbrief.org/reports/first-transgender-employment-discrimination-case-to-go-to-arbitration/
  34. 中国新闻网. 2016. 《“女扮男装”员工被开除 当事人申请仲裁已获立案》. https://www.chinanews.com.cn/m/sh/2016/03-16/7799284.shtml
  35. South China Morning Post / Associated Press. 2016. “China Hears First Transgender Discrimination Case.” https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/1935213/china-hears-first-transgender-discrimination-case
  36. Taipei Times / New York Times News Service. 2016. “Job Discrimination Case Raises Questions of Transgender Rights in China.” https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2016/04/16/2003644056
  37. GMA News / AFP. 2016. “China Transgender Man Loses Dismissal Case: Lawyer.” https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/topstories/world/565900/china-transgender-man-loses-dismissal-case-lawyer/story/
  38. 参考消息/搜狐. 2016. 《外媒关注中国首例跨性别就业歧视案败诉》. https://news.sohu.com/20160512/n448920133.shtml
  39. PinkNews. 2017a. “Chinese Court Rules That Man Was Illegally Fired but Not for Being Trans.” https://www.thepinknews.com/2017/01/02/chinese-court-rules-that-man-was-illegally-fired-but-not-for-being-trans/
  40. PinkNews. 2017b. “China Just Prosecuted Its First Illegal Dismissal Case for Trans Man.” https://www.thepinknews.com/2017/01/03/china-just-prosecuted-its-first-illegal-dismissal-case-for-trans-man/
  41. Taipei Times / Associated Press. 2017. “Chinese Trans Man Wins Case.” https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2017/07/29/2003675538
  42. 成都商报/心同网. 2017. 《贵阳跨性别就业歧视案：公司被判赔偿》. https://m.1314xt.com/news/guonei/20170802/26936.html
  43. 同语. 2018. 《中国法院首表态：单位看不惯员工性别表达？歧视！》. https://commonlanguage.github.io/TYarchives2018/20180205_1%E4%B8%AD%E5%9B%BD%E6%B3%95%E9%99%A2%E9%A6%96%E8%A1%A8%E6%80%81%EF%BC%9A%E5%8D%95%E4%BD%8D%E7%9C%8B%E4%B8%8D%E6%83%AF%E5%91%98%E5%B7%A5%E6%80%A7%E5%88%AB%E8%A1%A8%E8%BE%BE%EF%BC%9F%E6%AD%A7%E8%A7%86%EF%BC%81.html
  44. 中央社. 2018. 《陸首例跨性別就業歧視案 當事人：我仍受歧視》. https://www.cna.com.tw/news/acn/201808060149.aspx
  45. 同语. 2020. 《影响性诉讼⑦：这次，把“性别认同及性别表达”写进判决》. https://commonlanguage.github.io/TYarchives2020/20200518_1%E5%BD%B1%E5%93%8D%E6%80%A7%E8%AF%89%E8%AE%BC%E2%91%A6%E8%BF%99%E6%AC%A1%EF%BC%8C%E6%8A%8A%E2%80%9C%E6%80%A7%E5%88%AB%E8%AE%A4%E5%90%8C%E5%8F%8A%E6%80%A7%E5%88%AB%E8%A1%A8%E8%BE%BE%E2%80%9D%E5%86%99%E8%BF%9B%E5%88%A4%E5%86%B3.html
  46. Radio Free Asia. 2019. 《中国跨性别就业平权第一案》. https://www.rfa.org/mandarin/yataibaodao/shehui/hj-12112019143336.html
  47. Cornell Legal Information Institute. 2020. “Gao v. Beijing Dangdang Information Technology Co., Ltd. (2020).” https://www.law.cornell.edu/gender-justice/resource/Gao_v_Beijing_Dangdang_Information_Technology_Co_Ltd_2020
  48. China Labour Bulletin. 2020. “Workplace Discrimination.” https://clb.org.hk/en/content/workplace-discrimination