How 2018 Became an Interface Year for Transgender Public Support in Mainland China: Hotlines, Pride Events, and Specialty Clinics

Abstract

The public record of transgender life in mainland China shows an unusual concentration of interface-building in 2018. On 2 June, Shanghai’s first Trans Pride placed community advocacy, health care, violence prevention, law, and identity language inside a Chinese-led day-long public program. In August, the National Transgender Hotline expanded a transgender hotline operated by the Beijing LGBT Center since December 2015 into a collaborative network involving groups and volunteers in several cities. During the same month, the United Nations Development Programme and China Women’s University released a review of legal gender recognition in China. In September, Peking University Third Hospital published a sequenced guide that mapped initial consultation, psychiatric diagnosis, and later stages of transgender-related care into scheduled clinical entry points (ShanghaiPRIDE 2018a; China Development Brief 2018a; UNDP China 2018a; Peking University Third Hospital 2018b).

These sites belonged to different institutions: a community festival, a civil-society service, an international-organization and university policy project, and a hospital specialty clinic. They nevertheless performed a similar operation. Each converted dispersed knowledge into an entry point that a member of the public could identify and use. This essay calls that arrangement a public interface. A public interface answers four practical questions: who can enter → where entry happens → what the interface provides → where it can route a person next. I also propose entry-point density as a way to describe how many independent but mutually legible interfaces surround an issue during a given period.

The central argument is that 2018 is analytically useful as an interface year in mainland China’s transgender history. Organizational skill, community knowledge, medical expertise, and policy research accumulated over earlier years. In 2018, several of those capacities became more densely represented through named services, public schedules, stated boundaries, and referral information. Community events, hotlines, policy reports, and clinical pathways remained institutionally separate while sharing an increasingly navigable public surface. Research published from 2019 onward on mental health, family pressure, stigma, and health-care access helps show why such interfaces mattered (Peng et al. 2019; Yan et al. 2019a; Xie et al. 2020; Liu et al. 2021).

Keywords: mainland China transgender history; 2018; public interface; National Transgender Hotline; Shanghai Trans Pride; Peking University Third Hospital; legal gender recognition; community services

1. Research question: what becomes visible when history is read through entry points?

Histories of transgender life in mainland China can be organized around medical classifications, surgery, legal documents, employment cases, community organizations, media representations, and internet vocabulary. This essay asks a narrower question: How could a person enter these systems through information available in the public record? The shift in scale matters. Institutional existence tells us that an organization, clinic, report, or project operated. Interface history asks how that capacity was exposed to a user.

Research on Chinese social organizations has long examined registration, funding, project structures, and relations with state institutions (Saich 2000; Hildebrandt 2011). Studies of queer organizing add spaces, public-health projects, media production, volunteer networks, and internet communication to that institutional picture (Bao 2018, 2021; Tan 2023). These literatures explain the accumulation of organizational capacity. An interface perspective examines the moment when capacity becomes legible as an action: call this number, attend at this place and time, consult this report, enter this clinic, or follow this referral.

A robust public interface contains at least four kinds of information. The first is an intelligible audience. The 2018 hotline announcement, for example, addressed transgender people, people questioning or experiencing anxiety about their gender, and relatives or friends. The second is a concrete entry mode, such as a telephone process, registration procedure, event date, clinic schedule, or report page. The third is a visible scope of work. The hotline described listening, support, knowledge sharing, and resource referral; the hospital guide described initial consultation, psychiatric diagnosis, and later stages of treatment. The fourth is a next hop. A hotline can route someone toward a counselor, hospital, emergency resource, or local group, while a specialty clinic can route a patient toward psychiatry and other clinical services (China Development Brief 2018a; Peking University Third Hospital 2018b).

Entry-point density describes the combined structure. A single interface can compress a whole field into one service category. Multiple interfaces allow community support, medicine, law, public culture, and knowledge production to have separate doors. The documentary density of 2018 makes it possible to observe several such doors at once.

2. Materials and method: a synchronized reading of 2018

The core observation window is 2018. Earlier materials establish how the interfaces accumulated; later materials help trace continuation, closure, and scholarly interpretation. The source base has four layers.

The first layer consists of community and organizational records produced close to the events. ShanghaiPRIDE preserved the program of the first Shanghai Trans Pride, including the venue, language, guest topics, organizational affiliations, and an explicit explanation of the term 跨儿 (trans) (ShanghaiPRIDE 2018a). Its tenth-anniversary pages and beneficiary page record the wider Pride infrastructure and the transgender organizations that became visible through it (ShanghaiPRIDE 2018b–d). China Development Brief preserved Chinese- and English-language announcements for the National Transgender Hotline, including participating organizations, service categories, audiences, and referral boundaries (China Development Brief 2018a, 2018b).

The second layer consists of hospital and policy materials. Peking University Third Hospital published a specialty-clinic page and a sequenced treatment guide in 2018. These pages expose a clinical workflow through named departments, schedules, and stages (Peking University Third Hospital 2018a, 2018b). UNDP and China Women’s University released a legal gender recognition review and launch materials that gathered law, policy, adjudication, and public-service consequences into one policy resource (UNDP China 2018a, 2018b). Other UNDP materials circulating in 2018 provide national survey, health, and employment context (UNDP 2018; UNDP China 2018c, 2018d; UNDP/ILO 2018).

The third layer is scholarly research. Work on social organization and queer activism situates these interfaces inside longer histories of civic space, organizational strategy, media, and community formation (Hildebrandt 2011, 2018; Guo 2018; Deklerck & Wei 2015; Wang 2021). Research on transgender health documents the needs that public interfaces attempted to route: health information, stigma, family pressure, mental-health support, hormone and surgical care, and disclosure to professionals (Zhang et al. 2016; Chen et al. 2019; Peng et al. 2019; Yan et al. 2019a, 2019b; Liu et al. 2021).

The fourth layer is retrospective preservation. Later pages maintained by Kuaer Xinli, organizational mapping projects, archival databases, and reporting on the 2023 closure of the Beijing LGBT Center show how interface knowledge moved across organizational lifecycles (Kuaer Xinli 2022; Mapping Chinese Feminism; CNLGBTDATA; Associated Press / PBS NewsHour 2023).

For each 2018 node, I record six fields: date, interface_owner, entry_mode, service_or_knowledge, boundary, and next_hop. The method treats a festival program, hotline, policy report, and hospital guide as comparable objects at the level of public navigation. Their institutional purposes remain distinct; the comparison concerns how they expose action to a user.

3. Before the interface year: capacity accumulated across organizations, medicine, and media

The 2018 interfaces had long prehistories. Beijing LGBT Center developed out of collaborations among organizations active in Beijing’s LGBT community around 2008. Common Language’s oral-history project records organizational transformation, shared space, and changing issue specialization after that period. Guo’s case study of the Beijing Tongzhi Center similarly analyzes the role of space, volunteers, solidarity, and institutional conditions (Common Language 2017; Guo 2018).

The hotline had a shorter but clearly documented prehistory. The National Transgender Hotline announcement states that the Beijing LGBT Center launched a transgender-specific hotline in December 2015 and that it had provided more than one thousand instances of support over nearly three years. The 2018 step expanded that experience into a collaboration involving the Center’s transgender department, the psychological team of the Trans Center, the Anhui LGBT group, the Trans Youth Education Center, LESGO volunteers in Suzhou, and transgender volunteers outside formal organizations (China Development Brief 2018a, 2018b). The historical shift therefore concerns routing structure: an existing service acquired a broader collaborative back end.

Medical expertise also accumulated across a longer timeline. Howard Chiang’s histories locate modern Chinese categories of sex, medicine, and transgender experience within transformations extending across the twentieth century and the Sinophone world (Chiang 2018, 2021). The Chinese launch of the regional Trans Health Blueprint in 2016 brought comprehensive care, community participation, and clinical capacity into a public-health framework (UNDP China 2018d). Hospital pages published in 2018 thus sit at the meeting point between an established medical history and a newly explicit public pathway.

Shanghai’s public-event infrastructure had its own chronology. ShanghaiPRIDE began in 2009 and reached its tenth edition in 2018. The organizers described a growing locally based team, expanding participation from groups across China, and the debut of CnPRIDE activities in other cities (ShanghaiPRIDE 2018b, 2018c). The first Trans Pride entered this established festival platform as a specifically named, Chinese-led, trans-focused interface.

These prehistories support the concept of concentrated legibility. The key capacities already existed in people, organizations, professional knowledge, and urban networks. In 2018, several capacities acquired a public form that displayed who they were for and how to enter them.

4. June: Shanghai’s first Trans Pride as a layered public interface

The first Shanghai Trans Pride on 2 June 2018 provides one of the clearest examples of interface layering. Its public page specifies the date, an eight-and-a-half-hour program, a venue in Huangpu, and Chinese as the primary language. It describes the event as a safe setting offering information, resources, and education for local trans people and allies (ShanghaiPRIDE 2018a).

The guest program makes the interface denser. Topics included feminism and trans advocacy, the progress of domestic trans advocacy, advocacy concepts and strategies, and the future of trans public-interest work. The program also included medical expertise. A visitor therefore encountered several domains through one physical and informational entrance: community history, activist strategy, health knowledge, and networks of organizations.

Language itself became part of the interface. The event page explained 跨性别 (transgender), 跨儿 (trans), and gender expression, and described the use of 跨儿 by the Trans Center in Guangzhou and Kuaer Shuo in Shanghai. That vocabulary statement functions as a public record of community naming in 2018. It also performs navigation. A term tells a visitor how the event frames its constituency and connects identity language to the organizations using it.

The tenth-anniversary summary exposes another network layer. ShanghaiPRIDE reported the creation of CnPRIDE and described fundraising support for four trans-focused organizations: Trans Life in Beijing, Kuaer Shuo in Shanghai, a transgender shelter in Nanjing, and the Trans Center in Guangzhou (ShanghaiPRIDE 2018c, 2018d). An urban festival thereby amplified the visibility of a multi-city ecology.

This structure can be written as an interface stack:

event page → vocabulary → speakers → organizations → specialist resources

The event did more than assemble an audience. It condensed a set of routes into a public day. Its historical significance lies in the combination of cultural recognition and practical navigation.

5. August: the National Transgender Hotline as a routing interface

The National Transgender Hotline demonstrates a different design. It placed a relatively unified public entrance in front of distributed organizational capacity. The announcement described an audience that included transgender people, people questioning or feeling distress about their gender, and relatives and friends. It listed listening, companionship, knowledge sharing, coming-out questions, recommendations for trans-friendly professional counseling, emergency resources, information about clinicians and hospitals, and referrals to other LGBT organizations (China Development Brief 2018a).

Its service boundaries are equally revealing. The announcement distinguished peer support and resource referral from professional psychotherapy, emergency intervention, identity certification, and detailed medical prescribing. Those boundaries show a mature routing logic: the interface defines its own competence and identifies categories that belong to professional or emergency systems.

The resulting public referral chain is:

caller → peer operator → need recognition → information/support → professional or local resource → follow-up

This chain differs from a directory. A directory answers “what organizations exist?” A referral chain answers “given this problem, where does a person go next?” That distinction matters in transgender life because health, family conflict, emotional support, documentation, housing, employment, and safety can intersect inside a single request.

Subsequent research illustrates the need structure surrounding such routing. Chen and colleagues documented high levels of suicidal ideation and attempts in the 2017 national survey sample; Peng and colleagues documented abuse, neglect, bullying, and mental-health distress among transgender and gender-nonbinary adolescents; Xie, Gao, and Ho called for stronger social support; Liu and colleagues examined minority stress and access to health-care services (Chen et al. 2019; Peng et al. 2019; Xie et al. 2020; Liu et al. 2021). The hotline page should be read as an interface record, while these studies provide broader empirical context for the types of need named on that interface.

The word “national” here first describes a collaborative topology. The participating organizations and volunteers spanned several locations. A single contact process aggregated knowledge from those nodes and could route a person back toward a locality or specialty. That architecture raised entry-point density by reducing the amount of organizational knowledge required from a first-time user.

Kuaer Xinli’s later record of a National Transgender Hotline 2.0 shows how hotline knowledge could be carried into a later organizational form (Kuaer Xinli 2022). The durable historical object includes training, triage habits, resource lists, role boundaries, and referral logic as well as the telephone interface itself.

6. August and September: policy maps and clinical schedules become operational knowledge

In August 2018, UNDP and China Women’s University released Legal Gender Recognition in China: A Legal and Policy Review. The project assembled legislation, policy, implementation rules, adjudication, and effects on education, employment, health care, and other public services (UNDP China 2018a, 2018b). At the interface level, the report converts dispersed rules into a policy map that can be read by advocates, researchers, service providers, and institutions.

UNDP’s November 2018 essay linked legal gender recognition to the Guiyang transgender employment discrimination case and to access across public services (UNDP China 2018c). A June UNDP/ILO study added comparative evidence on workplace discrimination (UNDP/ILO 2018). Together, these resources created a policy-facing interface with several next hops: employment, education, documentation, health, and advocacy.

The hospital record provides an even more procedural form of navigability. Peking University Third Hospital published a page for its specialty clinic in February 2018. In September, its sequenced treatment guide organized care around initial consultation, psychiatric diagnosis, and subsequent needs, while listing clinic days and locations (Peking University Third Hospital 2018a, 2018b). Medical knowledge became a workflow visible outside the consultation room.

I call this property institutional navigability. An institution becomes practically navigable when a user can connect a name, location, time, eligibility condition, step, role, and referral relationship. Later ethnographic and health-services research shows that transgender care in China remains embedded in kinship, professional authority, stigma, and locally adapted clinical practice (Zhou 2024; Shao 2026). A public clinic guide is the operational surface of that larger institutional system.

Amnesty International’s 2019 report on barriers to gender-affirming treatment emphasized information gaps, surgical prerequisites, and family pressures; APTN preserved and circulated the report for a regional audience (Amnesty International 2019; Asia Pacific Transgender Network 2019). These later sources point to interface friction: entry points can be visible while the path itself carries substantial cost, gatekeeping, and social pressure. Interface history therefore tracks both the number of doors and the conditions encountered after entry.

7. Why simultaneity matters: four interfaces begin to explain one another

Placing the June-to-September records side by side clarifies why 2018 deserves a synchronized reading. The first Trans Pride offered a cultural and community interface. The National Transgender Hotline offered a support and referral interface. The legal gender recognition review offered a policy-knowledge interface. The specialty-clinic guide offered a clinical workflow interface. Each was operated by a different institutional actor and served a different immediate purpose.

They also formed complementary routes. An event page could introduce people to organizations and issue areas. A hotline could route a caller toward a hospital, counselor, emergency resource, or local group. A legal report could explain the documentary and policy environment surrounding employment, education, and health care. A hospital guide could turn a medical need into a sequence of appointments. Each interface possessed boundaries; together they produced a wider navigational field.

The relationship can be represented as an entry matrix:

Entry-point density has two dimensions. Horizontal density counts distinct interface types. Vertical density examines the number of visible steps and referrals inside each interface. The 2018 record is rich on both dimensions. A person could enter through culture, support, policy, or medicine, and several of those entrances offered additional routes.

Survey knowledge also interacted with this interface ecology. The national social-attitudes survey and the 2017 transgender population survey made family, school, employment, health, and mental-health conditions increasingly citable. Policy and service interfaces translated some of these issues into resource categories, procedures, and institutional language (UNDP 2018; Chen et al. 2019; Peng et al. 2019). Evidence production and service design thus began to form a more visible feedback loop.

8. Institutional context: public interfaces inside a constrained organizational field

An interface year is also an organizational year. Chinese civil-society scholarship shows how registration structures, funding channels, public-health projects, and uncertainty shape organizational strategy (Saich 2000; Hildebrandt 2011, 2018; Stern & Hassid 2012). Queer organizing frequently developed through service provision, cultural production, volunteer networks, public-health cooperation, and flexible organizational forms (Bao 2018; Wang 2021).

The 2018 interfaces reflect that ecology. Shanghai Trans Pride was organized through an event platform and partner groups. The hotline joined formal and informal actors behind a service endpoint. The legal report paired an international development agency with a Chinese university. The clinic operated inside a major public hospital. Similar goals—information, support, recognition, and access—were distributed across institutional forms with very different authorities.

This distribution matters for historical interpretation. A public network can become denser through coordination among heterogeneous institutions. Distributed ownership is central to this pathway. The four interfaces are valuable precisely because their authorities differ: community experience carries one kind of legitimacy, medical departments another, policy research another, and public events another.

Media and internet scholarship adds a further layer. Deklerck and Wei describe online media as part of community building, while Tan analyzes the tactical and performative dimensions of queer and feminist digital media in China (Deklerck & Wei 2015; Tan 2023). The 2018 interfaces relied heavily on public pages that could circulate beyond the physical site of service. A hospital schedule, hotline announcement, or event page turned local capacity into searchable information.

Later platform restrictions and organizational closures demonstrate the historical importance of those pages as records (China Digital Times 2021; Associated Press / PBS NewsHour 2023). Public interfaces are operational infrastructure in their own time and archival evidence after their operating conditions change.

9. Counterevidence and scope: visibility, reach, quality, and continuity are separate measures

The interface-year framework measures the density and navigability of publicly documented entry points. Service reach, user experience, geographic equality, professional quality, affordability, and long-term continuity require additional evidence. A 2018 webpage can establish how an entry point described itself. Hotline logs, patient research, interviews, and local records are needed to estimate how consistently people in different places reached the promised service.

Geography is especially important. Shanghai Trans Pride had a specific urban venue. Peking University Third Hospital was located in Beijing. The hotline used multi-city collaboration to extend reach across distance. Public records are therefore denser around major urban nodes than around county-level or rural experiences. Research in Jiangsu, national health studies, and later work on clinical care all show meaningful variation in stigma, health access, family relations, and institutional pathways (Yan et al. 2019a, 2019b; Liu et al. 2021; Zhou 2024).

The temporal boundary is equally important. 2018 is a year of concentrated legibility, while the capacities had earlier origins. ShanghaiPRIDE began in 2009; Beijing LGBT Center grew from earlier organizational collaborations; its transgender hotline began in 2015; the Chinese Trans Health Blueprint was launched in 2016; survey work in 2016 and 2017 created a stronger evidence base (Common Language 2017; China Development Brief 2018a; UNDP China 2018d). The historical claim concerns the simultaneous thickening of interfaces in 2018.

Institutional lifecycles add another boundary. Beijing LGBT Center closed in 2023, and later reports and databases recorded changes in the organizational environment. Other groups, including Kuaer Xinli, preserved and reorganized portions of service capacity (Associated Press / PBS NewsHour 2023; Kuaer Xinli 2022; CNLGBTDATA). Fixed centers, short projects, hotlines, and digital resources have different lifespans. Interfaces can migrate between carriers.

Separating these measures increases analytical precision. Visibility, reach, quality, affordability, continuity, and archival survival can each be studied with evidence appropriate to that question.

10. Original synthesis: the public-interface ledger and entry-point density

To make the approach reusable, I propose a public-interface ledger with eight fields for every historical entry point:

1. public_name: the name visible to a user;
2. owner: organization, hospital, platform, institution, or coalition;
3. launch_or_record_date: launch, event, publication, or page date;
4. entry_mode: phone, webpage, venue, clinic, report, or platform account;
5. audience: the people addressed by the interface;
6. scope: the services or knowledge explicitly offered;
7. boundary: role, eligibility, or resource limits;
8. next_hop: other services, professionals, or institutions to which the interface points.

A compact expression for entry-point density is:

entry-point density = type diversity × operational-field completeness × referral connectivity

The expression serves historical comparison and keeps organizational evaluation as a separate task. Type diversity distinguishes ten similar social-media accounts from four independent kinds of entrance. Operational-field completeness asks whether time, place, audience, scope, and procedure are visible. Referral connectivity asks whether a person can move from one interface to another.

The 2018 examples contain high information density across all three dimensions. Shanghai Trans Pride joined vocabulary, speakers, organizations, and specialists. The National Transgender Hotline joined regional actors through referral rules. The legal recognition review joined legal and policy domains. The hospital guide joined stages of clinical care. Together they formed a multi-entry public network.

This framework also explains why historians should preserve operational detail. A surviving organization name establishes presence. A surviving hotline scope, event schedule, clinic timetable, and report structure allow researchers to reconstruct how a person could act at a specific historical moment. Digital-history and community-media research both emphasize the importance of platform form and representation; the interface ledger adds the question of historical usability (Deklerck & Wei 2015; Tan 2023).

11. Historical argument: from being seen to finding a route

Public visibility during the 2010s included celebrity coverage, documentaries, news stories, social-media posts, and growing use of transgender vocabulary. The synchronized 2018 record demonstrates another form: operational visibility. The key historical question becomes “where can a person go from here?”

This shift belongs to a longer history of queer and transgender infrastructure. Bao’s work connects media, cultural production, and tongzhi activism. Hildebrandt and Saich explain how social organizations adapt within institutional constraints. Wang places three decades of LGBT activism in a history of organizations and expanding public issues. Bai’s recent ethnography records fatigue, fragile optimism, and the ongoing labor of Chinese trans advocacy (Bao 2018, 2021; Hildebrandt 2011; Saich 2000; Wang 2021; Bai 2026). The interface density of 2018 is one cross-section through that longer process.

The cross-section reveals a multi-system structure. Community organizations carried peer knowledge and referral networks. Hospitals controlled clinical pathways. International organizations and academic partners assembled policy knowledge. Festivals created public cultural space. Each system covered only part of a person’s possible needs. Their interfaces widened navigability by making transitions between systems more legible.

Later research makes the demand side of the network clearer. Studies document family and school violence, mental-health distress, stigma, hormone and surgical needs, health-care access, and the role of family in treatment pathways (Peng et al. 2019; Chen et al. 2019; Yan et al. 2019a; Liu et al. 2021; Zhou 2024; Shao 2026). Those findings illuminate the 2018 records from another angle. One body of evidence describes needs; the interfaces show how institutions and community actors tried to convert needs into routes.

Conclusion

Reading 2018 as an interface year places several contemporaneous developments inside one historical question: how did support, knowledge, and institutions become navigable? Shanghai’s first Trans Pride organized community language, organizations, professional topics, and public education through a Chinese-led event interface. The National Transgender Hotline condensed a distributed volunteer and organizational network into a consultation and referral interface. The legal gender recognition review turned dispersed rules and cases into a policy-knowledge interface. Peking University Third Hospital translated multi-stage clinical expertise into a scheduled treatment pathway.

Three features connect these interfaces. First, they offer concrete modes of entry: a phone process, date and venue, clinic schedule, report page, and procedural steps. Second, they expose role boundaries, distributing peer support, counseling, law, and medicine across appropriate nodes. Third, they include next hops, allowing a single entrance to become part of a larger network.

The public-interface ledger and entry-point density provide a method for writing year-scale transgender history. Researchers can record how many independent interfaces surround an issue, how operationally complete those interfaces are, and how visibly they connect to other nodes. Those changes can then be compared with organizational lifecycles, policy conditions, clinical systems, media environments, and platform governance.

The historical importance of 2018 lies in concentrated navigability. Earlier organizational skill, survey evidence, medical knowledge, and urban event experience became legible through a denser set of public entrances. Subsequent years brought organizational change, platform restrictions, service migration, and new forms of preservation. The movement, closure, recombination, and archiving of interfaces continue to form a central strand of mainland China’s transgender public history (Wang 2026; Bai 2026; China Digital Times 2021; Associated Press / PBS NewsHour 2023).

References

1. Bai, Tianyi. 2026. “No-One Signed Up: Fatigue, Failure, and Fragile Optimism in Chinese Trans Advocacy.” Made in China Journal. https://madeinchinajournal.com/2026/06/01/no-one-signed-up-chinese-trans-advocacy/
2. Wang, Stephanie Yingyi. 2021. “Unfinished Revolution: An Overview of Three Decades of LGBT Activism in China.” Made in China Journal. https://madeinchinajournal.com/2021/07/15/unfinished-revolution-an-overview-of-three-decades-of-lgbt-activism-in-china/
3. Wang, Stephanie Yingyi. 2026. “Decolonizing politics of (In)visibility and LGBT rights—being political in non-liberal China.” Sexualities. https://doi.org/10.1177/13634607261417775
4. Hildebrandt, Timothy. 2011. “The Political Economy of Social Organization Registration in China.” The China Quarterly. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/china-quarterly/article/abs/political-economy-of-social-organization-registration-in-china/6A04A3753759DA827000C702BA26ABD0
5. Saich, Tony. 2000. “Negotiating the State: The Development of Social Organizations in China.” The China Quarterly. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/china-quarterly/article/negotiating-the-state-the-development-of-social-organizations-in-china/A207B5AEBBC10327105BC81357B95378
6. Huang, Ana. 2017. “Precariousness and the Queer Politics of Imagination in China.” Culture, Theory and Critique. https://doi.org/10.1080/14735784.2017.1287580
7. Tan, Jia. 2023. Digital Masquerade: Feminist Rights and Queer Media in China. New York University Press. https://nyupress.org/9781479811847/digital-masquerade/
8. Bao, Hongwei. 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
9. Bao, Hongwei. 2021. Queer Media in China. Routledge. https://www.routledge.com/Queer-Media-in-China/Bao/p/book/9781032010113
10. Chiang, Howard. 2018. After Eunuchs: Science, Medicine, and the Transformation of Sex in Modern China. Columbia University Press. https://cup.columbia.edu/book/after-eunuchs/9780231185783/
11. Chiang, Howard. 2021. Transtopia in the Sinophone Pacific. Columbia University Press. https://cup.columbia.edu/book/transtopia-in-the-sinophone-pacific/9780231190961/
12. Rofel, Lisa. 2007. Desiring China: Experiments in Neoliberalism, Sexuality, and Public Culture. Duke University Press. https://www.dukeupress.edu/desiring-china
13. Zhou, Xiaogao. 2024. “Care in Transition: Global Norms, Transnational Adaptation, and Family Involvement in China’s Transgender Health Care.” Social Science & Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2024.116658
14. Shao, Jianmin. 2026. “The Geobiopolitics of Trans Medicine: Kinship, Recalibrated Care, and Gender-Affirming Health in China.” American Ethnologist. https://americanethnologist.org/journal/issues/volume-53-issue-1-february-2026/
15. Zhang, Ye, John Best, Weiming Tang, et al. 2016. “Transgender Sexual Health in China: A Cross-Sectional Online Survey in China.” PLOS ONE. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5053843/
16. Chen, Runsen, Xuequan Zhu, Lucy Wright, et al. 2019. “Suicidal Ideation and Attempted Suicide amongst Chinese Transgender Persons: National Population Study.” Journal of Affective Disorders. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2018.12.011
17. Peng, K., 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
18. Yan, Hongjing, et al. 2019. “High HIV Prevalence and Associated Risk Factors among Transgender Women in China: A Cross-sectional Survey.” Journal of the International AIDS Society. https://doi.org/10.1002/jia2.25417
19. Yan, Zi-Han, 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
20. Liu, et al. 2021. “Gender Minority Stress and Access to Health Care Services among Transgender Women and Transfeminine People: Results from a Cross-sectional Study in China.” BMC Infectious Diseases. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-021-06782-5
21. Xie, Zhibo, Ya Gao, and Chiakang Ho. 2020. “The Necessity of Social Support for Transgender People in China.” The Lancet. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32483-1
22. Stern, Rachel E., and Jonathan Hassid. 2012. “Amplifying Silence: Uncertainty and Control Parables in Contemporary China.” Comparative Political Studies. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414011434295
23. Hildebrandt, Timothy. 2018. “NGOs and the Success Paradox: Gay Activism ‘After’ HIV/AIDS in China.” Social Policy Working Paper 01-18, LSE. https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/100112/1/01_18_Hildebrandt_T.pdf
24. Guo, Lifu. 2018. “Tongzhi Solidarity under Chinese Authoritarian Government: A Case Study of the Beijing Tongzhi Center.” Komaba Journal of Asian Studies. https://doi.org/10.15083/00074907
25. Deklerck, S., and X. Wei. 2015. “Queer Online Media and the Building of China’s LGBT Community.” In Queer/Tongzhi China. https://cnlgbtdata.com/files/uploads/2024/06/Queer_Tongzhi_China.pdf
26. ShanghaiPRIDE. 2018. “上海首届跨儿骄傲节.” https://shpride.com/2018/05/19/transpride/
27. ShanghaiPRIDE. 2018. “第十届上海骄傲节庆祝我们的社群与认同.” https://shpride.com/2018/05/19/pride2018_community_identity/
28. ShanghaiPRIDE. 2018. “上海骄傲节再创里程碑——十周年.” https://shpride.com/2018/06/21/10years/
29. ShanghaiPRIDE. 2018. “骄傲节支持 / Beneficiaries 2018.” https://shpride.com/beneficiaries2018/
30. China Development Brief. 2018. “全国跨性别热线正式上线啦！” https://www.chinadevelopmentbrief.org.cn/news/detail/19107.html
31. China Development Brief. 2018. “National Transgender Hotline Launched in China.” https://chinadevelopmentbrief.org/reports/national-transgender-hotline-launched-in-china/
32. 北京大学第三医院成形外科. 2018. “易性症综合治疗门诊.” https://www.sar.com.cn/xinwen/syyydt/12231.html
33. 北京大学第三医院成形外科. 2018. “北医三院‘易性症’序列治疗就诊指南.” https://www.sar.com.cn/xinwen/news/12294.html
34. UNDP China. 2018. Legal Gender Recognition in China: A Legal and Policy Review. https://www.undp.org/china/publications/legal-gender-recognition-china-legal-and-policy-review
35. UNDP China. 2018. “UNDP and China Women’s University Release Legal Gender Recognition Report.” https://www.undp.org/china/press-releases/undp-and-china-womens-university-release-legal-gender-recognition-report
36. UNDP China. 2018. “A Safe and Inclusive Society for Transgender People in China.” https://www.undp.org/china/blog/safe-and-inclusive-society-transgender-people-china
37. UNDP. 2018. Being LGBTI in China: A National Survey on Social Attitudes towards Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Gender Expression. https://www.undp.org/asia-pacific/publications/being-lgbti-china-national-survey-social-attitudes-towards-sexual-orientation-gender-identity-and-gender-expression
38. UNDP China. 2018. “A Blueprint for Trans Health: Filling the Knowledge Gap in China.” https://www.undp.org/china/news/blueprint-trans-health-filling-knowledge-gap-china
39. UNDP/ILO. 2018. “Report Details Workplace Discrimination Faced by LGBTI People in China, the Philippines and Thailand.” https://www.undp.org/china/press-releases/report-details-workplace-discrimination-faced-lgbti-people-china-philippines-and-thailand
40. China Development Brief. 2011. “北京同志中心.” https://www.chinadevelopmentbrief.org.cn/news/detail/10768.html
41. Common Language (同语). 2017. “北京拉拉社区口述史｜2008年之后——挑战与转型.” https://commonlanguage.github.io/TYarchives2017-1/20170719_1%E5%8C%97%E4%BA%AC%E6%8B%89%E6%8B%89%E7%A4%BE%E5%8C%BA%E5%8F%A3%E8%BF%B0%E5%8F%B22008%E5%B9%B4%E4%B9%8B%E5%90%8E--%E6%8C%91%E6%88%98%E4%B8%8E%E8%BD%AC%E5%9E%8B.html
42. 跨儿心理小组. 2022. “全国跨性别热线2.0上线啦！” https://kuaerxinli.org/%E7%A4%BE%E7%BE%A4%E8%B5%84%E6%BA%90/1335
43. 跨儿心理小组. “了解我们.” https://kuaerxinli.org/%E4%BA%86%E8%A7%A3%E6%88%91%E4%BB%AC
44. Amnesty International. 2019. “China: ‘I Need My Parents’ Consent to Be Myself’—Barriers to Gender-Affirming Treatments for Transgender People in China.” https://www.amnesty.org/zh-hant/documents/asa17/0269/2019/en/
45. Asia Pacific Transgender Network. 2019. “Barriers to Gender-Affirming Treatments for Transgender People in China.” https://www.weareaptn.org/resource/barriers-to-gender-affirming-treatments-for-transgender-people-in-china-english/
46. CNLGBTDATA. “中国LGBT运动二十年.” https://cnlgbtdata.com/fulltext/books/south-city-new/china_LGBT_in_two_decades/
47. Mapping Chinese Feminism. “北京同志中心.” https://mappingchinesefeminism.com/organizations/%E5%8C%97%E4%BA%AC%E5%90%8C%E5%BF%97%E4%B8%AD%E5%BF%83/
48. Associated Press / PBS NewsHour. 2023. “Beijing LGBTQ Center Shuttered amid Crackdown in China.” https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/beijing-lgbtq-center-shuttered-amid-crackdown-in-china
49. Transgender Resource Center (Hong Kong). “中國大陸機構.” https://www.tgr.org.hk/index.php/en/10-database?start=8
50. China Digital Times. 2021. “未命名公众号，未命名群体，未命名的爱——中国高校性少数社团公众号遭批量永封.” https://chinadigitaltimes.net/chinese/667938.html