From a Cancelled Judgeship to a Show Bearing Her Name: Jin Xing and Role Migration in Chinese Television, 2011–2015

Abstract

In September 2011, Jin Xing said publicly that Zhejiang TV’s Fei Tong Fan Xiang had removed her from its final judging panel for a reason connected to her transgender history. During the same period, she continued appearing as a judge on Dragon TV’s Dance Forest Conference. Two months later, Star TV announced a talk show built around her, Venus Hits Mars (Jin Xing Zhuang Huo Xing). The program premiered in March 2012. Jin then remained highly visible as a judge or mentor across Dance Forest Conference, So You Think You Can Dance China (Wu Lin Zheng Ba), and China’s Good Dance. In January 2015, Dragon TV launched The Jin Xing Show, placing her own name, commentary, interviews, and public persona at the center of a weekly program (China News 2011a, 2011b, 2011d; Sina Entertainment 2012a; China News 2013a, 2014a, 2015a).

This article treats the four years from 2011 through 2015 as a history of television institutions. Its central question concerns role migration: how did the same openly transgender public figure move through decisions about eligibility, professional authority, personality-based entertainment value, and hosting power? The article proposes a role-legitimacy ladder: appearance authorization → professional authority → personality authority → host ownership. The ladder tracks a shift from permission to occupy the screen toward a program structure organized around the person’s voice and name.

The sequence yields a broader historical argument about transgender public visibility in mainland China during the early 2010s. Television expanded Jin Xing’s visibility through role value. Her dance career supplied an initial basis for expertise. Reality television turned severe, rapid, and direct judging into a recognizable personality asset. Talk shows converted that personality asset into hosting authority and program branding. The reported 2011 exclusion and her simultaneous work on Dragon TV reveal institutional variation across channels, programs, regulatory chains, and production needs. The 2017 suspension of The Jin Xing Show later demonstrated the continuing dependence of celebrity visibility on platform and institutional conditions (Beijing Business Today 2017).

Keywords: transgender history in China; Jin Xing; television history; reality television; talk show; transgender visibility; Dragon TV; media institutions

1. Why four years of television roles belong in transgender history

Histories of transgender life frequently follow medicine, identity documents, litigation, community organizations, and public terminology. Television produces a different documentary regime. Program commissioning, judging eligibility, presenter status, broadcast scheduling, production companies, channel branding, and ratings all create visible institutional interfaces. After a person enters television, producers continue assigning roles such as expert, judge, controversial guest, mentor, commentator, celebrity, or host. Each role carries a distinct amount of speaking time, editorial authority, narrative centrality, and access to audiences.

Jin Xing offers an unusually clear case because she already possessed substantial professional capital before television became the main engine of her mass visibility. China Culture, China Daily, the World Economic Forum, Beijing cultural institutions, and international performance organizations describe a long career in modern dance, choreography, company leadership, and international touring. Institutional records place the formation of the Jin Xing Dance Theatre around 1999 and describe it as an early independent modern-dance company in China (China Culture 2008; China Daily 2022; World Economic Forum 2026a, 2026b; Visit Beijing 2018; Asian Cultural Council 2025). She therefore arrived on reality television with an externally legible professional identity: dance expertise could anchor her authority before a mass entertainment persona had fully formed.

Her transgender history was also already public. Accounts of her gender-affirming medical transition in the mid-1990s, later interviews, dance profiles, and biographies had made gender history one part of a wider public biography that included choreography, company building, international performance, family life, and celebrity (Dance Informa 2010; SCMP 2018; Chiang 2018, 2021). The key issue for this article is the ordering of those public identities inside television institutions.

The core observation window runs from September 2011 through February 2015. September 2011 creates a sharp comparison between a reported eligibility cancellation and continued judging on another channel. November 2011 through March 2012 records a first migration from judge to talk-show host. The 2013 and 2014 seasons show how dance reality television repeatedly produced Jin Xing as a recognizable expert-personality hybrid. January 2015 marks the launch of a show carrying her own name (China News 2011a, 2011c, 2011d; Sina Entertainment 2012a, 2012b; China News 2013a, 2014a, 2015a; People’s Daily 2015).

2. Sources and method: visibility as role, permission, and narrative position

The first source group consists of contemporaneous television reporting. China News, People’s Daily, Sina Entertainment, and related outlets preserve the 2011 judging controversy, ongoing Dance Forest Conference work, the Star TV contract for Venus Hits Mars, its 2012 premiere, the 2013 and 2014 dance competition seasons, and the launch and early ratings of The Jin Xing Show (China News 2011a–2011e, 2012a, 2012b, 2013a, 2013b, 2014a–2014c, 2015a; Sina Entertainment 2012a, 2012b, 2013; People’s Daily 2013, 2015). Their proximity to each event makes them useful for reconstructing role changes and the language used around those changes.

The second group contains professional and institutional records. China Culture, China Daily, the World Economic Forum, Visit Beijing, and the Asian Cultural Council document Jin Xing’s dance career, company history, touring, and artistic leadership (China Culture 2008; China Daily 2022; World Economic Forum 2026a, 2026b; Visit Beijing 2018; Asian Cultural Council 2025). These records explain the source of professional authority later converted into judging authority.

The third group comes from transgender history, queer Chinese studies, and media research. Chiang traces transformations in sex/gender knowledge and transgender history across Chinese and Sinophone contexts. Bao examines queer community formation, media practice, cultural production, and activism in China. Jeffreys, Hildebrandt, and Guo provide policy, organizational, and activist context. Nauta, Wang, and Zhao place reality television, cultural regulation, and queer screen practices within Chinese media institutions (Chiang 2018, 2021; Bao 2018, 2021; Jeffreys 2018; Hildebrandt 2013; Guo 2021; Nauta 2020; Wang 2019; Zhao 2022).

The fourth group supplies comparative theories of visibility and representation. Brown and McLaren connect transgender media representation with recognition. Ramasubramanian and Banjo join media effects to power, intersectionality, context, and agency. Garretson studies public visibility and attitude change in a comparative political setting. Caswell and colleagues show how representation also depends on who builds and preserves the record (Brown & McLaren 2021; Ramasubramanian & Banjo 2020; Garretson 2018; Caswell et al. 2017).

Each television node is recorded through six fields:

The method therefore treats visibility as a bundle of institutional permissions. Screen presence forms one level. Professional judgment forms another. A stable personality used as entertainment content forms a third. A program organized around the host’s name and voice forms a fourth.

3. September 2011: exclusion and continued presence at the same historical moment

September 2011 provides the decisive comparison. Reports around September 22 cited Jin Xing’s public statement that Zhejiang TV’s Fei Tong Fan Xiang had removed her from its final judging panel, with the reason communicated to the production linked to her transgender history. The reports also recorded her forceful response, framed explicitly around sex/gender discrimination (China News 2011a, 2011b).

The same reporting cycle preserved another trajectory. Jin Xing continued participating in Dragon TV’s Dance Forest Conference. A September 30 interview showed that she had already developed a distinctive judging persona there. Media descriptions emphasized severity, speed, professional judgment, and a willingness to challenge contestants and colleagues (China News 2011c).

The coexistence of these two outcomes turns an abstract question about “acceptance” into a comparison among institutions. The person’s career record, transgender history, and dance expertise remained broadly stable. Program, channel, and decision chain changed. Visibility therefore appeared as an institutional distribution: different television organizations could assign different permissions to the same public figure at nearly the same time.

This comparison also changes the shape of a “breakthrough” story. Later celebrity success sits alongside a documented episode of role exclusion. Both belong in the chronology. The historical curve resembles several platform trajectories layered over one another, each governed by its own production incentives, managerial decisions, market calculations, and cultural boundaries (Jeffreys 2018; Nauta 2020; Wang 2019).

4. November 2011 to March 2012: professional judge becomes independent host

Roughly two months after the eligibility controversy, Star TV announced a contract with Jin Xing and a talk show designed around her. Contemporary reports described the move in direct role terms: a modern-dance artist and competition judge would enter a presenter position, with “sharp,” “direct,” and socially engaged commentary forming the program’s central appeal (China News 2011d, 2011e).

In March 2012, Venus Hits Mars moved from announcement into broadcast. Sina Entertainment reported on March 7 that the program would premiere on March 17 and summarized the change as a substantial step “from judge to host.” Coverage from the March 13 launch event described Jin Xing as a social commentator whose program would dissect public issues and allow viewers to make judgments. China News coverage on March 15 emphasized questions, guest dialogue, and commentary on current social events (Sina Entertainment 2012a, 2012b; China News 2012a).

This transition can be described as the personalization of professional authority. In a dance competition, Jin Xing’s right to speak came from her dance career. In a talk show, the program treated “how Jin Xing judges an issue” as content in its own right. Professional standing still supplied credibility, while the topic range expanded toward culture, family, social events, and entertainment. Her television role developed the capacity to move across subject domains.

Bao’s study of queer media emphasizes relations among media production, communities, state structures, and markets. Nauta’s research on Chinese reality television shows how television organizes public discourse through character types, emotions, and governing narratives (Bao 2021; Nauta 2020). Jin Xing’s transition offers a mainstream-broadcast interface for these dynamics: production translated a recognized expert judge into a personality expected to generate recurring viewpoints.

5. 2012–2014: reality television turns commentary style into a reusable asset

Venus Hits Mars supplied hosting experience, while dance reality television repeatedly enlarged Jin Xing’s personality authority. Coverage of the 2012 Dance Forest Conference explicitly said the previous season had made Jin Xing famous as a judge and treated her severe commentary as a key feature worth carrying into a new season (China News 2012b).

The 2013 So You Think You Can Dance China season intensified that pattern. Dragon TV and its producers assembled Yang Liping, Jin Xing, Jordan Chan, and Fang Jun as mentors or judges. Reports repeatedly organized Jin Xing’s presence around professional disagreement, mentor conflict, dancer selection, and her authority to assess performance (Sina Entertainment 2013; China News 2013a, 2013b; People’s Daily 2013). The structure of this coverage matters. Her transgender history remained part of her public biography, while everyday program coverage increasingly centered what she said about dance and how she challenged other experts.

China’s Good Dance in 2014 extended the same mechanism. Reports documented Jin Xing discussing child performers, training, stage expression, mentor relationships, and final-round contestants, while production and entertainment coverage also used conflicts among judges as narrative material (China News 2014a, 2014b, 2014c). “Jin Xing-style commentary” had become portable: a new channel, format, or season could reuse the same recognizable personality asset.

This article calls that position personality authority. It requires three elements. Audiences can anticipate a stable mode of expression. Producers can build rhythm and disagreement around that mode. Media coverage can circulate the persona beyond an individual episode. The role grows from “expert who judges” toward “person whose judging generates television events.”

Transgender visibility acquires a particular structure in this phase. Gender history remains publicly legible, while routine television value is repeatedly demonstrated through professional judgment, speech style, and entertainment impact. Brown and McLaren’s work on trans representation directs attention toward forms of recognition; Ramasubramanian and Banjo add power, context, and agency to media-effects analysis (Brown & McLaren 2021; Ramasubramanian & Banjo 2020). The Jin Xing case shows how mainstream visibility can accumulate through repeated role performance: every mentoring decision, hosting segment, and public response updates the interpretive frame through which audiences encounter the person.

6. January 2015: The Jin Xing Show merges name, voice, and program brand

On January 27, 2015, China News reported that The Jin Xing Show would premiere on Dragon TV at 10 p.m. the following evening. Coverage described a talk show spanning culture, history, everyday social issues, and entertainment, and compared Jin Xing with other talk-show figures already working on the channel (China News 2015a).

Early February coverage carried a concrete ratings signal. People’s Daily reproduced figures released by Dragon TV showing a CSM34-city rating of 0.94 for the second episode and described it as the top variety-show result for that day, alongside a strong increase among viewers born in the 1980s compared with the premiere (People’s Daily 2015). These figures support a bounded proposition: the show achieved rapid market visibility during its launch period. Their channel-supplied origin and measurement scope remain part of the evidence record.

The title itself marks an institutional change. Dance Forest Conference, So You Think You Can Dance China, and China’s Good Dance each existed as formats into which Jin Xing entered as judge or mentor. The Jin Xing Show placed “Jin Xing” in the title. Her name became identifier, content promise, and brand entry point. Guests and topics could change from week to week; the stable element came from the presenter’s judgment, stories, interviews, and manner of speech.

This is the fourth stage of the role-legitimacy ladder: host ownership. “Ownership” here describes narrative and branding structure. The program is organized around a host’s name, voice, and personality. Television institutions had moved from authorizing Jin Xing’s presence toward using Jin Xing to define the program itself.

The shift also changed the placement of transgender history. The 2011 controversy put gender history directly inside a decision about judging eligibility. By 2015, a woman with a publicly known transgender biography was being developed as a stable television persona. The historical change lies in role structure. A useful scale for studying transgender public figures therefore asks whether identity is treated as an eligibility variable, biographical background, narrative resource, or component of a larger celebrity brand.

7. The role-legitimacy ladder: four institutional levels

Placed together, the 2011–2015 nodes form a four-stage model.

7.1 Appearance authorization

The first stage asks whether the person receives the role at all. The 2011 Fei Tong Fan Xiang controversy belongs here: an eligibility decision determined whether Jin Xing would sit on the final judging panel. Dragon TV’s continued recording during the same period provides a contrasting authorization outcome (China News 2011a, 2011b).

7.2 Professional authority

The second stage asks why the person has standing to judge others. Dance competitions converted Jin Xing’s long career in modern dance, choreography, and company leadership into television expertise. Professional records outside television support this source of authority (China Daily 2022; World Economic Forum 2026a; Visit Beijing 2018).

7.3 Personality authority

The third stage asks whether a style of expression itself generates recurring program value. Reporting between 2011 and 2014 repeatedly described directness, severity, rapid judgment, and conflict as stable elements of Jin Xing’s screen presence. Reality television made that personality portable across programs (China News 2011c, 2012b, 2013b, 2014a).

7.4 Host ownership

The fourth stage asks whether the program is organized around the person’s name and voice. Venus Hits Mars created the first sustained hosting experiment. The Jin Xing Show placed the presenter directly in the program title (Sina Entertainment 2012a; China News 2015a).

The stages accumulate. Dance expertise supplies verifiable competence. Reality television turns competence into a familiar personality. Talk shows convert personality into hosting structure. A named show converts hosting structure into a program brand. Transgender history remains present across all four levels, while television institutions assign it different meanings as the role changes.

8. Four positions for transgender identity inside television narratives

The role ladder also maps onto four positions for gender history.

The first is eligibility variable. In the 2011 controversy, contemporary reporting placed Jin Xing’s transgender history inside the reported reason for role removal. Identity directly entered the question of access to the judging position.

The second is biographical background. Cultural profiles, interviews, and institutional biographies often place her mid-1990s gender-affirming medical transition alongside dance, family, company building, and international work (China Culture 2008; Dance Informa 2010; SCMP 2018).

The third is public narrative resource. A hosting environment allows autobiographical material about gender, family, career, and social experience to circulate within a program’s editorial boundaries. Bao’s distinction between community-oriented queer media and mass broadcasting is useful here: mainstream television offers wider reach together with a stronger format structure (Bao 2021).

The fourth is celebrity-brand background. The brand of The Jin Xing Show drew on the whole established public persona: dancer, direct commentator, woman host, family figure, and openly transgender public figure. Individual episodes could focus on social commentary or celebrity interviews while gender history remained part of the audience’s background knowledge.

These positions reveal the internal structure of “visibility.” Screen exposure, explicit identity reference, speaking time, professional authority, and program centrality are separate variables. Historical comparison becomes more precise when each variable receives its own record.

9. Counterevidence and boundary conditions

First, the 2011 record already contains divergent institutional outcomes. Role removal and continuing broadcast work occurred in the same period. Regulation, channel management, producers, format, and regional decision chains all shaped authorization. A national aggregate story would lose that distribution.

Second, Jin Xing possessed concentrated professional resources. A celebrated dance career, company leadership, international touring, strong on-camera speech, and a mature public profile formed a rare combination (China Culture 2008; Asian Cultural Council 2025; World Economic Forum 2026b). Her trajectory therefore represents a high-resource ceiling path into mainstream television. Other transgender media histories require surveys, community media, local reporting, and personal platforms as separate source bases (Peng et al. 2019; Bao 2021).

Third, reality and talk television carry commercial and format logics. Conflict, recognizable speech style, celebrity topics, and ratings participate in casting decisions. Nauta’s reality-television research and Wang’s work on cultural regulation show market value and institutional value operating together (Nauta 2020; Wang 2019). Jin Xing’s visibility formed at the intersection of identity, expertise, marketability, and television governance.

Fourth, 2015 serves as a major role threshold and also as one point inside a longer history. By late August 2017, The Jin Xing Show entered suspension. Beijing Business Today reported Dragon TV’s explanation as a scheduling adjustment and also documented competing public interpretations around the decision (Beijing Business Today 2017). The later episode provides a boundary condition for the model: even a presenter who reaches host ownership remains connected to channel scheduling, program policy, and production institutions.

Fifth, scholarly categories such as transgender, queer, tongzhi, and zhongxing cover distinct populations and histories. Chiang emphasizes historical category formation and geopolitical context in Sinophone transgender studies. Li’s research on zhongxing traces another path linking gender expression, lesbian visibility, and popular culture (Chiang 2021; Li 2019). This article uses transgender visibility specifically for Jin Xing as a publicly known transgender woman, while broader queer-media research supplies institutional context.

10. A reusable method for television history

The role-legitimacy ladder can be applied to other public figures and programs through fresh evidence collection. A researcher can begin with a “program node card” containing program, channel, date, role, speaking authority, host position, identity reference, and later outcome. Sorting those cards by role level shows how media permissions expand, contract, or migrate.

A second step combines within-platform comparison and cross-platform comparison. Within-platform comparison follows how one channel assigns roles across programs. Cross-platform comparison follows the same person across channels at the same moment. Jin Xing’s 2011 record already demonstrates the value of the second form.

A third step connects professional archives with television archives. Arts institutions establish career credentials. Launch events and program reporting establish role authorization. Ratings describe market response within a documented metric. Interviews preserve self-interpretation. Together, these sources convert celebrity biography into a verifiable institutional chronology.

A fourth step records historical vocabulary. Sources from 2011 frequently use period terms translated as “sex change” or “transsexual.” Current historical narration can use transgender woman and gender-affirming medical transition while retaining period language in source titles and bibliographic records. This layered treatment aligns with scholarship on the historical formation of sex/gender categories in China and the Sinophone world (Chiang 2018, 2021).

A fifth step separates fame from representativeness. A highly famous individual can reveal how television institutions process a particular role configuration. Her trajectory also carries unusual professional and class resources. A broader public history emerges by combining celebrity cases with organizational records, surveys, community archives, and everyday media (Bao 2018, 2021; Hildebrandt 2013; Bernot & Davies 2023; Bernot, Yang & Davies 2025).

11. A longer implication: mainstream television converts identity questions into role questions

The September 2011 controversy placed transgender history at the center of role access. The institutional question concerned Jin Xing’s continued eligibility as a judge. From 2012 onward, television production increasingly asked a different family of questions: How would Jin Xing judge a contestant? How would she frame a social issue as host? Could her name sustain a weekly program? This sequence is the role migration described in this article.

The transition matters for media history because mass television depends on stable role interfaces: expert, mentor, presenter, comic persona, interviewer, celebrity. When a marginalized identity enters mainstream broadcasting, production translates a complex life into recurring interfaces. Jin Xing’s dance career supplied an expert interface. Severe judging supplied a reality-TV interface. Direct social commentary supplied a talk-show interface. The Jin Xing Show eventually combined those interfaces into a personal brand.

Visibility gains and format costs emerge together. Gains include repeated exposure, speaking time, and audience familiarity. Format costs arise from the program’s power to select topics, editing rhythms, and acceptable role behavior. Bao’s queer-media research emphasizes the agenda-building capacity of community media, while mainstream television offers a larger broadcast reach inside stronger institutional formats (Bao 2021). Both media forms belong in a history of transgender public life.

Garretson’s comparative study of coming out and public opinion treats celebrity visibility as one element in social attitude change. Brown and McLaren emphasize the quality and recognition structure of trans representation (Garretson 2018; Brown & McLaren 2021). The Jin Xing case adds a mainland Chinese institutional layer: visibility also depends on role permission. The question of who audiences see and the question of what authority television grants that person can be studied separately.

Conclusion: from “may she appear?” to “what is the program because she is here?”

Jin Xing’s television history from 2011 through 2015 forms a dense chain of role migration. In September 2011, she publicly confronted a judging cancellation reported as connected to her transgender history; during the same period, she remained a dance judge on Dragon TV. In November 2011, Star TV announced a talk show around her. In March 2012, she entered an independent presenter role. Dance reality programs in 2013 and 2014 repeatedly amplified her professional judgment and recognizable speech style. In January 2015, The Jin Xing Show merged personal name, hosting authority, and program brand.

The role-legitimacy ladder compresses that sequence into four stages: appearance authorization → professional authority → personality authority → host ownership. It offers an operational scale for transgender media history. Stage one tracks access. Stage two tracks professional judgment. Stage three tracks personality as a content asset. Stage four tracks whether a program is organized around the person’s name and voice.

The chronology also preserves institutional variation and conditionality. Exclusion and continued recording coexisted in 2011; high visibility in 2015 later met a program suspension in 2017. Jin Xing’s trajectory can therefore be read as a case of mainstream television gradually absorbing, shaping, and branding a transgender public figure. Its historical transformation occurs at a precise institutional location: television moved from deciding whether she fit a program to using her presence to define what the program was.

References

Academic research

1. 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
2. Bao, Hongwei. 2021. Queer Media in China. Routledge. https://www.routledge.com/Queer-Media-in-China/Bao/p/book/9781032010113
3. Bernot, Ausma, and Sara E. Davies. 2023. “The ‘fish tank’: social sorting of LGBTQ+ activists in China.” https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/14616742.2023.2261948
4. Bernot, Ausma, Fan Yang, and Sara E. Davies. 2025. “‘The glowing fireflies’: Invisible activism under China’s queer necropolitics.” https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/13548565241288466
5. Blodgett, Su Lin, Solon Barocas, Hal Daumé III, and Hanna Wallach. 2020. “Language (Technology) is Power: A Critical Survey of ‘Bias’ in NLP.” ACL 2020. https://aclanthology.org/2020.acl-main.485/
6. Brown, Brittany, and Jay T. McLaren. 2021. “‘See me! Recognize me!’ An analysis of transgender media representation.” Communication Quarterly. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01463373.2021.1954764
7. Caswell, Michelle, Alda Allina Migoni, Noah Geraci, and Marika Cifor. 2017. “‘To Be Able to Imagine Otherwise’: community archives and the importance of representation.” https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1h54v9m9
8. 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/
9. Chiang, Howard. 2021. Transtopia in the Sinophone Pacific. Columbia University Press. https://cup.columbia.edu/book/transtopia-in-the-sinophone-pacific/9780231190961/
10. Garretson, Jeremiah J. 2018. The Path to Gay Rights: How Activism and Coming Out Changed Public Opinion. New York University Press. https://nyupress.org/9781479850075/the-path-to-gay-rights/
11. Guo, Ting. 2021. “Introduction: Translation and LGBT+/queer activism.” The Translator. https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2021.1903911
12. Hildebrandt, Timothy. 2013. Social Organizations and the Authoritarian State in China. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139108768
13. Jeffreys, Elaine. 2018. “Public Policy and LGBT People and Activism in Mainland China.” In Routledge Handbook of the Chinese Communist Party, 283–296. https://opus.lib.uts.edu.au/handle/10453/122043
14. Li, Eva Cheuk-Yin. 2019. “Zhongxing Phenomenon.” In Global Encyclopedia of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer (LGBTQ) History, 1745–1750. https://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/id/eprint/136619/
15. Nauta, Anna Petronella Maria. 2020. Governing through reality television in contemporary China. University of Amsterdam. https://pure.uva.nl/ws/files/58443591/Thesis_complete_.pdf
16. Peng, Ke, Xuequan Zhu, Amy Gillespie, et al. 2019. “Self-reported Rates of Abuse, Neglect, and Bullying Experienced by Transgender and Gender-Nonbinary Adolescents in China.” JAMA Network Open 2(9). https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2749453
17. Peng, Altman Yuzhu, and Yu Sun. 2022. “A dialectical-relational approach to anti-trans sentiments on Hupu.” https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211695822000770
18. Ramasubramanian, Srividya, and Omotayo O. Banjo. 2020. “Critical Media Effects Framework: Bridging Critical Cultural Communication and Media Effects through Power, Intersectionality, Context, and Agency.” Journal of Communication 70(3):379–400. https://academic.oup.com/joc/article/70/3/379/5831067
19. Rofel, Lisa. 2007. Desiring China: Experiments in Neoliberalism, Sexuality, and Public Culture. Duke University Press. https://www.dukeupress.edu/desiring-china
20. Rother, Christina. 2013. “Tongzhi Politics in the Making: Revisiting the Gay and Lesbian Movement and Identity Formation in Beijing.” https://www.academia.edu/3124020/Tongzhi_Politics_in_the_Making
21. Wang, Shuning. 2019. Living with censorship: The political economy and cultural politics of Chinese television. University of Amsterdam. https://pure.uva.nl/ws/files/42185777/Thesis_complete_.pdf
22. Wang, Yiran. 2019. Living through becoming. University of Amsterdam. https://pure.uva.nl/ws/files/39221565/Thesis_complete_.pdf
23. Zhao, Jamie J. 2022. “Queering/Queered Chinese-Language Cinematic and Cultural Imaginaries.” Jump Cut. https://scholars.cityu.edu.hk/files/141023528/134154829.pdf

Contemporary reports, institutional sources, and public records

24. China News. 2011a. “金星自曝因变性被封杀 愤慨斥遭歧视：决不接受.” 2011-09-22. https://www.chinanews.com/yl/2011/09-22/3346646.shtml
25. China News. 2011b. “金星不满因‘变性’被取消评委资格 宋丹丹力挺.” 2011-09-23. https://www.chinanews.com/yl/2011/09-23/3349842.shtml
26. China News. 2011c. “舞蹈家金星谈‘封杀’：这实在是太滑稽了.” 2011-09-30. https://www.chinanews.com.cn/cul/2011/09-30/3365004.shtml
27. China News. 2011d. “金星曝主持之道‘男女通吃’ 谈家庭：我愿倾尽所有.” 2011-11-17. https://www.chinanews.com.cn/yl/2011/11-17/3467217.shtml
28. China News. 2011e. “变性艺人金星强调与男性有别：叫我金女士.” 2011-11-17. https://www.chinanews.com.cn/yl/2011/11-17/3466629.shtml
29. Sina Entertainment. 2012a. “脱口秀《金星撞火星》17日首播 金星担任主持人.” 2012-03-07. https://ent.sina.com.cn/v/m/2012-03-07/13393574628.shtml
30. Sina Entertainment. 2012b. “金星变身综艺主持不惧与周立波比较.” 2012-03-13. https://ent.sina.com.cn/v/m/2012-03-13/15073579288.shtml
31. China News. 2012a. “金星玩‘毒舌脱口秀’ 坦言：别人不敢碰的我敢碰.” 2012-03-15. https://www.chinanews.com.cn/yl/2012/03-15/3746810.shtml
32. China News. 2012b. “‘舞林大会’新评委挑衅金星 扬言要为巩新亮‘复仇’.” 2012-03-02. https://www.chinanews.com.cn/yl/2012/03-02/3714844.shtml
33. Sina Entertainment. 2013. “《舞林争霸》杨丽萍金星要为平民舞者正名.” 2013-01-06. https://ent.sina.com.cn/v/m/2013-01-06/17353828338.shtml
34. China News. 2013a. “舞林大会邀杨丽萍金星为导师 欲超‘好声音’.” 2013-01-16. https://www.chinanews.com.cn/shipin/cnstv/2013/01-16/news160264.shtml
35. China News. 2013b. “‘舞林争霸’金星与方俊冲突离席 节目组否认炒作.” 2013-03-11. https://www.chinanews.com.cn/yl/2013/03-11/4632951.shtml
36. People’s Daily. 2013. “《舞林争霸》评委现场失和 方俊哽咽向金星下战帖.” 2013-03-12. https://media.people.com.cn/n/2013/0312/c40606-20756966.html
37. China News. 2014a. “金星加盟‘好舞蹈’提条件：方俊不来我就来.” 2014-04-17. https://www.chinanews.com/yl/2014/04-17/6074327.shtml
38. China News. 2014b. “‘好舞蹈’频现‘娃娃党’ 金星放话别学大人样.” 2014-05-06. https://www.chinanews.com.cn/yl/2014/05-06/6136665.shtml
39. China News. 2014c. “《中国好舞蹈》迎总决赛 金星对爱徒有信心.” 2014-06-27. https://www.chinanews.com/yl/2014/06-27/6327506.shtml
40. China News. 2015a. “金星推脱口秀叫板崔永元.” 2015-01-27. https://www.chinanews.com.cn/yl/2015/01-27/7007840.shtml
41. People’s Daily. 2015. “东方卫视推出《金星秀》 舞蹈家想靠嘴征服世界.” 2015-02-06. https://media.people.com.cn/n/2015/0206/c40606-26518070.html
42. Beijing Business Today. 2017. “东方卫视两档脱口秀再陷停播风波.” 2017-09-01. https://news.sina.cn/gn/2017-09-01/detail-ifykpuui0070372.d.html
43. China Culture. 2008. “Jin Xing.” https://en.chinaculture.org/library/2008-01/21/content_79790.htm
44. Dance Informa. 2010. “Jin Xing’s Story.” https://dancemagazine.com.au/2010/04/jin-xing%E2%80%99s-story/
45. South China Morning Post. 2018. “Who is LGBT icon Jin Xing, China’s first transgender celebrity?” https://www.scmp.com/magazines/style/people-events/article/2173609/who-jin-xing-chinas-only-transgender-celebrity
46. Visit Beijing. 2018. “JIN Xing Dance Theatre Wild Flowers.” https://english.visitbeijing.com.cn/article/47OO9BsCPZY
47. China Daily. 2022. “Jin Xing.” https://govt.chinadaily.com.cn/s/202209/19/WS632823b5498ea274927a39c8/jin-xing.html
48. World Economic Forum. 2026a. “Jin Xing.” https://www.weforum.org/people/jin-xing/
49. World Economic Forum. 2026b. “Jin Xing Dance Theatre Shanghai.” https://www.weforum.org/organizations/jin-xing-dance-theatre-shanghai/
50. Asian Cultural Council. 2025. “Trinity / Wild Flowers.” https://www.asianculturalcouncil.org/alumni-events/trinity-wild-flowers