From a ‘Filial Son’ Narrative to Liu Ting’s Public Reappearance: Moral-Model Credentials Across Transition, 2005–2016

Abstract

In 2005, Liu Ting entered national news under the historical public name Liu Ting then used, written 刘霆, after bringing her mother, who had uremia, to live near Zhejiang Forestry University while she studied and provided daily care. Her mother received a kidney transplant in 2006, and the caregiving story continued to circulate through Spring Festival features, local honors, public-benefit activities, and awards. In 2007 she received recognition in the first National Moral Model program in the category of filial devotion. Seven years later, she publicly announced her intention to transition. In April 2015 she appeared publicly as Liu Ting, written 刘婷, and as a woman. In September 2015 she entered a beauty pageant whose stage presentation retold the story of caring for her mother and receiving national moral recognition. In January 2016, Zhejiang A&F University published rules for the filial-piety scholarship fund that still carried the historical name under which it had been created (Xinhua 2006; Jinri Zaobao 2007; Ministry of Education 2007; China News Service 2014; China News Service 2015a; Beijing Times 2015b; Zhejiang A&F University 2016).

This article treats those eleven years as a case study in public identity and institutional memory. Its question is how a moral credential formed under an earlier public name and gender frame continued to be invoked by media organizations, event organizers, a university, and Liu Ting herself after her public transition. I propose two connected concepts. The first is public-credential carryover: once a social credential has been authenticated by reporting, schools, local honors, and national recognition, it can travel into later phases of a public life and become a resource for explaining a new public role. The second is archival inertia: institutional names, fund titles, old headlines, and award records continue to preserve historical names and period-specific gender language, producing a layered public archive around one person.

The case shifts a transgender-history question from “which identity label changed?” toward “how did accumulated social credentials travel across change?” Liu Ting’s 2015 public appearance and pageant did not construct a public figure from a blank slate. Both explicitly reactivated the caregiving narrative and moral-model recognition established between 2005 and 2007. At the same time, reporting in 2014 and 2015 reinterpreted the relation between morality and gender autonomy, turning “moral model” from a potentially constraining title into a site for arguments about biographical continuity (Yangcheng Evening News 2015; Beijing Youth Daily 2015). The combination is best read as portable credentials moving through an archive that retains multiple historical layers.

Keywords: transgender history in China; Liu Ting; National Moral Model; filial piety; public identity; institutional memory; archival inertia; media history

1. Research question: what happens to an “old credential” in transgender public history?

Biographical histories often divide public transition into a before and an after. That chronological distinction can clarify names, medical events, documents, and public appearances. It can also hide another line that keeps moving: education, work, family relations, awards, social evaluations, and organizational ties acquired earlier can remain active later. Liu Ting’s case makes that continuity unusually visible.

Her first public recognition came through care work. After entering Zhejiang Forestry University in 2005, she brought her mother, who had uremia, to live nearby and organized daily life around study, paid work, and caregiving. A January 2006 Xinhua report on her mother’s kidney transplant recalled that the story of “bringing mother to university” had already mobilized wide public support (Xinhua 2006). Spring Festival coverage placed the same story in a recognizable moral vocabulary of filial devotion. A 2007 “Zhejiang Pride” award turned care work into a local public honor, while reports also recorded that Liu had redirected part of the assistance she received into a campus filial-piety fund intended to help other students (Guilong News 2006; Jinri Zaobao 2007a, 2007b).

In September 2007, the first National Moral Model program raised that credential to a national frame. The Ministry of Education described the awards as socially exemplary and emphasized that honorees should be credible, worthy of respect, and learnable examples for others (Ministry of Education 2007). Later public records identify Liu’s category as a National Moral Model for filial devotion and care for elders (CNR 2015a). By the end of 2007, her public credential therefore had several mutually reinforcing points of certification: contemporaneous reporting, university and local networks, public-benefit activity, local recognition, and a national moral award.

That credential carried institutional weight. Scholarship on East Asian families shows that intergenerational obligations continue to organize family life even amid rapid demographic and social change; work on China’s intergenerational relations similarly describes family responsibility as changing together with state, market, and welfare institutions (Raymo et al. 2015; Whyte 2015; Zhang 2017). Liu Ting’s early public narrative made those structures concrete through the actions of a university student whose caregiving became publicly exemplary.

2. Materials and method: a credential-migration ledger

This case study uses four bodies of material.

The first consists of reports and institutional records from 2005–2007: Xinhua’s coverage of the kidney transplant, the Zhejiang Pride award, Spring Festival feature reporting, National Moral Model material, and the university fund record. These materials establish how a credential was produced: who reported it, who certified it, and which institution gave it a durable organizational form (Xinhua 2006; Jinri Zaobao 2007a, 2007b; Ministry of Education 2007; Zhejiang A&F University 2016).

The second consists of public-transition records from 2014. On August 14, Liu Ting announced in Guangzhou that she intended to pursue gender-affirming medical care and live publicly as a woman. China News Service documented the event, while a long-form interview published days later preserved Liu’s own account of gendered self-understanding and the pressure attached to her existing public role (China News Service 2014; Beijing Times 2014).

The third group is the dense cluster of public appearances, interviews, commentary, and pageant reporting in 2015. The April media event, interviews with Liu and her mother, opinion pieces, and photo features provide one concentrated archive. The September pageant provides a second public stage, with reports describing both eligibility discussion and a performance that retold the earlier caregiving biography (China News Service 2015a, 2015b; Yangcheng Evening News 2015; Xinjingbao 2015; The Paper 2015; Beijing Times 2015b).

The fourth group is scholarship on transgender history, queer China, media, archives, and family sociology. Howard Chiang places modern Chinese categories of sex and gender within changing scientific, medical, and historical knowledge systems. Hongwei Bao examines queer public culture and media practice in China. Lisa Rofel, Timothy Hildebrandt, Elaine Jeffreys, and Ting Guo provide context for public culture, organization, policy, and translation. Brittany Brown and Jay McLaren, together with Srividya Ramasubramanian and Omotayo Banjo, offer tools for analyzing representation, recognition, power, and agency (Chiang 2018, 2021; Bao 2018, 2021; Rofel 2007; Hildebrandt 2013; Jeffreys 2018; Guo 2021; Brown & McLaren 2021; Ramasubramanian & Banjo 2020).

For each key node, the study records six fields:

The historical public name is retained only where it serves source identification. The article uses Liu Ting as the present reference for the person. Original titles, fund names, and period records retain their historical wording so that readers can locate the archive. This separates current editorial description from source-layer metadata, consistent with archival scholarship that treats description and representation as part of historical access (Caswell et al. 2017).

3. 2005–2006: care work becomes a portable public story

The first layer of Liu Ting’s public identity emerged from highly concrete daily actions: attending class, working, renting a room near campus, and helping her mother obtain treatment and manage everyday life. Xinhua’s January 2006 report on the kidney transplant looked back to the previous semester, when Liu had brought her mother to live near the university. It also documented the transition from private care to public assistance as media attention mobilized medical and financial support (Xinhua 2006).

A crucial media operation occurred in the compression of this life into the phrase “bringing mother to university.” The phrase made a complicated household situation legible as a compact biographical label. Spring Festival reporting placed Liu within a public narrative of filial devotion and family ethics, using traditional moral vocabulary to explain why the story mattered (Guilong News 2006). A recognizable public figure was created through repetition: later coverage could invoke the caregiving story as a quick explanation for why this person already possessed moral standing.

This is the first stage of credential formation. A social credential emerges through the relation among action, narration, repetition, and certification. The action supplies the historical event; repeated narration turns it into a stable label; organizations give that label value; later institutions can cite it. Research on marriage and family in East Asia describes intergenerational responsibility as a durable structure within rapid modernization, while scholarship on Chinese intergenerational relations emphasizes the changing relation among household duty, state policy, market conditions, and social support (Raymo et al. 2015; Whyte 2015). Liu Ting’s early archive puts those broader processes into the story of one student caregiver.

4. 2007: local honor, public-benefit work, and national recognition form a portable credential

In January 2007, the “Zhejiang Pride—Most Influential Figures of 2006” ceremony moved Liu Ting into a local public-honor system. Contemporaneous reports described both the award and the campus filial-piety fund established from donated resources. Liu explained the fund as a way to pass social assistance onward to students facing similar difficulties (Jinri Zaobao 2007a, 2007b). Caregiving therefore acquired an organizational interface: the person once presented as a recipient of help was also presented as someone redistributing help.

The National Moral Model award in September changed the scale of recognition. The Ministry of Education’s own account framed the first national selection as a social-education project and described honorees as exemplary members of the educational community (Ministry of Education 2007). Later records identify Liu as one of the first National Moral Models in the filial-devotion category (CNR 2015a).

By this point the credential had four properties: it was cross-media, cross-institutional, citable, and durable. News reports cited the award; award narratives cited the earlier care story; the university fund converted biography into an institutional name; later public events could reactivate the whole chain. I call that structure a credential bundle:

event → narrative label → local recognition → national credential → institutional residue.

Portability comes partly from multiple certifiers. Hildebrandt’s work on social organizations and the Chinese state and Jeffreys’s study of public policy and LGBT activism both show how public identities and claims circulate across institutional settings rather than residing in one place (Hildebrandt 2013; Jeffreys 2018). In Liu Ting’s case, the relevant social capital was initially a family-ethics credential certified through schools, media, local awards, and national recognition.

5. 2014: public transition turns “moral model” into a title requiring reinterpretation

On August 14, 2014, Liu Ting publicly announced in Guangzhou her intention to pursue gender-affirming medical care and live as a woman. The contemporaneous China News Service story placed “National Moral Model” prominently in its framing and documented a visual device at the press event that displayed the historical and current given names as a directional transition (China News Service 2014). A long interview published four days later again used the moral-model credential as the audience’s entry point, while giving Liu room to describe childhood gender awareness and years of pressure attached to the social role expected of her (Beijing Times 2014).

At this point, the old credential began to perform a different narrative function. In 2005–2007, “moral model” explained caregiving. In 2014, the same title explained why a public transition attracted additional attention. Reporting increasingly asked how morality and gender autonomy related to one another. A certificate of exemplary behavior became a starting point for interpreting social expectations.

This is the central mechanism of public-credential carryover: the credential remains valid while its narrative function is rearranged by a new scene. Liu did not have to reconstruct the history of care from the beginning because several institutions had already certified it. The new task for public narration was to place that history next to her life as a woman. Chiang’s histories of sex and transgender knowledge in modern China emphasize that medical, social, and identity classifications from different periods coexist in the archive; Guo’s work on queer translation and activism similarly shows how linguistic choices reorder public intelligibility (Chiang 2018, 2021; Guo 2021). The naming layers in Liu Ting’s archive are an especially concrete example of that temporal coexistence.

6. April 2015: morality is rewritten as a continuity argument

In April 2015, Liu Ting appeared publicly under her current name and as a woman. China News Service reported her statement that she had found a more complete sense of self and again summarized the earlier caregiving, fund, and National Moral Model story (China News Service 2015a). CNR, Xinhua-associated pages, newspapers, and The Paper formed a dense reporting network in which the old biography was republished under the current name (CNR 2015b; Xinhua 2015a; The Paper 2015).

The most revealing evidence appears in commentary titles. Yangcheng Evening News framed its story around the proposition that transition was not a betrayal of morality, while Beijing Youth Daily used the proposition that moral worth had not deteriorated (Yangcheng Evening News 2015; Beijing Youth Daily 2015). These titles are themselves historical data: they reveal that editors were explicitly placing “morality” and transition in the same argumentative sentence.

The reframing followed three steps. First, reporting maintained the earlier caregiving credential as part of the biography of the same person. Second, it recognized a changed public name and gender presentation. Third, it selected concepts capable of linking the two phases, frequently drawing on filial devotion, courage, authenticity, or personal completeness. That produced a rhetoric of continuity in which past caregiving and present self-expression became two forms of action within a single life.

Media research helps specify why this matters. Brown and McLaren argue that transgender representation depends on the form of recognition a narrative grants its subjects. Ramasubramanian and Banjo’s critical media-effects framework asks researchers to keep power, context, and agency visible together. Bao’s work on queer media in China similarly treats public culture as an arena in which speaking positions are actively constructed (Brown & McLaren 2021; Ramasubramanian & Banjo 2020; Bao 2021). Liu Ting’s 2015 archive turns those abstractions into an editorial operation that can be observed directly: whether the old moral credential is attached to the current name, and how that attachment is explained.

7. September 2015: the pageant reactivates the old credential as a contestant narrative

On September 22, 2015, Liu Ting participated in a beauty pageant in Guangzhou. Beijing Times, China News Service, Xinhua, People’s Daily, and Information Times reports describe discussion within the organizing committee about eligibility, followed by Liu’s participation in the final and receipt of a special “Most Beautiful Transformation” award (Beijing Times 2015b; China News Service 2015c; Xinhua 2015b; People’s Daily 2015; Information Times 2015).

The scene is central to this case because the old credential was inserted directly into the stage script. Reports describe a talent segment in which other contestants introduced, in Chinese and English, Liu’s history of caring for her mother while attending university and her subsequent National Moral Model recognition. A large screen used a train-ticket motif linking her historical and current given names within one visual timeline (Beijing Times 2015b).

The pageant therefore made credential carryover visible. The competition evaluated a present contestant, while its biographical proof of significance came from caregiving a decade earlier. Part of the answer to “why should this contestant matter to the audience?” was supplied by a previously authenticated record of moral conduct. The old credential became credit for a new public role.

The same scene also preserves institutional conditions. Organizers discussed eligibility, meaning that entry into this gendered public role required an organizational decision. Participation and an award document one act of institutional admission; the eligibility discussion documents the boundary that the organization had to negotiate. Garretson’s work on visibility and public opinion shows how celebrities and openly identified public figures can contribute to shifts in social understanding. Liu Ting’s case adds a more granular institutional scale: visibility can be separated into entry permission, narrative position, and inherited credential (Garretson 2018).

8. 2016: a university fund shows how archival inertia coexists with biographical continuity

In January 2016, Zhejiang A&F University published management rules for the “Liu Ting Filial-Piety Award Fund,” using the historical written name under which the fund had been created. The rules explain that the fund originated from the donation of a student in the former College of Art and Design and that it supports enrolled students recognized for academic performance, filial devotion, respect for elders, and social responsibility (Zhejiang A&F University 2016).

The institutional record appeared after Liu Ting was publicly living under her current name, while the fund title retained the historical one. This is what I call archival inertia. A fund title serves as an institutional identifier; continuity can be bound to earlier records, regulations, and names. A person’s current name serves a different function: recognizing present identity. When both appear in the historical record, one archive contains two temporal layers.

Caswell and colleagues argue that archival description shapes who future readers can imagine and recover from the record. Chiang’s transgender historiography shows how people and bodies become differently classified across knowledge systems and historical periods (Caswell et al. 2017; Chiang 2021). The fund provides a compact mainland Chinese example: institutional continuity can be stored through an old name, while biographical continuity is reconstructed through explicit relational description.

This makes dual indexing essential for research. A database limited to the current name would miss much of the material published between 2005 and 2014. A database limited to the historical name would weaken the intelligibility of the person’s current identity. A more robust record can retain current_name, historical_public_name, name_valid_from, source_title, and source_date as separate fields. Respectful present-day description and accurate archival retrieval then become parts of the same design.

9. Counterevidence and limits: positive narratives, medicalized looking, and negotiated eligibility

Liu Ting’s public archive contains substantial positive coverage. That evidence supports an argument about credential carryover while setting clear limits on what the case can establish.

First, the positive archive describes how particular media outlets, a university, event organizers, and public narratives treated one unusually visible person. Population-level conditions require surveys, health research, employment evidence, and legal records. Peng and colleagues’ study of transgender and gender-nonbinary adolescents in China documents substantial exposure to abuse, neglect, and bullying, illustrating a much wider and more uneven distribution of experience than a public-figure case can represent (Peng et al. 2019).

Second, much reporting from 2014–2015 concentrated heavily on surgery, appearance, clothing, and bodily detail. High visibility therefore arrived through medicalized and aesthetic frames as well as through recognition. Brown and McLaren’s work on transgender media representation distinguishes the amount of exposure from the quality and form of recognition (Brown & McLaren 2021). This article treats those body-centered descriptions as evidence about the media environment of the period while centering its own analysis on institutions, credentials, and narrative migration.

Third, the pageant’s eligibility discussion shows that access depended on a specific organization’s authorization. The eventual participation and award document inclusion within that event; the preceding discussion documents a threshold that had to be negotiated. Both belong in the history.

Fourth, the National Moral Model credential evaluated filial conduct in 2007. It did not itself constitute a state institution’s recognition of transgender status. Its reuse after 2014 demonstrates social portability of a prior credential. Legal gender recognition, document changes, medical policy, and anti-discrimination protections belong to separate institutional chains and require their own evidence (Jeffreys 2018; Chiang 2021).

10. Original synthesis: the public-credential carryover matrix

The case can be summarized with a public-credential carryover matrix. The matrix asks which institution certified an earlier credential, who reused it in a later scene, and what function it performed after reuse.

The matrix describes a longer chain:

care labor → media recognition → public honor → national credential → transition disclosure → narrative reinterpretation → new-role admission → institutional memory.

This chain makes a useful comparison with the role-legitimacy ladder developed in GenderLibs’ recent case study of Jin Xing. The Jin Xing case follows professional dance capital as it becomes television authority; the Liu Ting case follows moral capital as it crosses naming and gender-frame changes. Together they suggest that transgender public visibility often travels through preexisting social capital, while the form of that capital shapes the route. Professional capital can open a judging or hosting role. Moral capital can organize public sympathy, continuity claims, and a contestant biography (Bao 2021; Rofel 2007).

The matrix also separates two temporal mechanisms that are often collapsed. Carryover describes a social resource moving forward. Inertia describes a record format retaining an earlier name or category. The first is about reuse; the second is about persistence. Their intersection produces a layered archive in which one person’s present public identity is connected to institutions that still store older metadata.

11. Historical significance: from “before and after” to rewiring accumulated life credentials

Liu Ting’s case supports a different method for public biography. Transition is a major temporal node, while relationships, moral acts, honors, education, and institutional traces accumulated earlier remain part of the same life. The historian can therefore shift from a two-part identity story toward a question of how one biographical network was rewired.

That method is especially useful for Chinese digital archives. Old headlines usually preserve historical names and period-specific gender language. Later interviews use current names. Awards, schools, and funds may preserve names from the moment of institutional creation. Linking those sources requires multi-period entity indexing while present-day prose uses respectful current reference. The archive becomes a temporal relationship graph rather than a pile of documents filed under one string.

Yiran Wang’s work on queer life trajectories in China emphasizes becoming as an ongoing process; Bao’s media research likewise treats public culture as something made through repeated acts of expression, circulation, and reorganization (Wang 2019; Bao 2018, 2021). Liu Ting’s archive connects those insights: a life changes while its public record changes with it, and older records continue to participate in the production of later meaning.

Within a larger history of transgender life in mainland China, the case adds a layer beside medicine, law, organization, and language. Medical history traces diagnostic and clinical institutions. Legal history follows documents, employment, and rights claims. Organizational history follows service and advocacy infrastructure. This case shows how socially recognized assets can be reused after a public transition. A history of credentials deserves to be treated as a distinct dimension of transgender public history.

Conclusion: an old honor travelled into a new public phase

The evidence from 2005–2016 forms one continuous line. Liu Ting first entered national reporting because of care for her mother. Public support contributed to treatment; local honor and public-benefit activity institutionalized the care narrative; the 2007 National Moral Model recognition added national certification. After her public transition announcement in 2014, that older credential stayed central to headlines, profiles, and public debate. In April 2015, media commentary reworked “morality” into an argument about continuity. In September, a pageant stage directly retold the earlier caregiving story and placed the National Moral Model credential inside Liu Ting’s present contestant narrative. In January 2016, a university fund record preserved the historical name attached to the institution when it was created.

Public-credential carryover explains the continuity: once multiple institutions have certified a social credential, it can continue to function across later changes in public identity, while each new scene reorganizes what the credential means. Archival inertia explains the other side: institutional names and old reports preserve historical naming layers, requiring researchers to connect period metadata with current identity through explicit temporal description.

Liu Ting’s case therefore makes one important problem in transgender history concrete. Public lives accumulate credentials that can travel. Transition reorganizes the narrative position of those credentials. The caregiving labor of 2005, national recognition in 2007, Liu Ting’s public life as a woman in 2015, and the university fund record in 2016 all belong to the same biography. What changed most visibly was the way institutions and media rewired the value of the past to the name used in the present.

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. 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
6. 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
7. 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/
8. Chiang, Howard. 2021. Transtopia in the Sinophone Pacific. Columbia University Press. https://cup.columbia.edu/book/transtopia-in-the-sinophone-pacific/9780231190961/
9. 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/
10. Guo, Ting. 2021. “Introduction: Translation and LGBT+/queer activism.” The Translator. https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2021.1903911
11. Hildebrandt, Timothy. 2013. Social Organizations and the Authoritarian State in China. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139108768
12. 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
13. 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/
14. 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
15. 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
16. 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
17. Raymo, James M., Hyunjoon Park, Yu Xie, and Wei-Jun Jean Yeung. 2015. “Marriage and Family in East Asia: Continuity and Change.” Annual Review of Sociology 41:471–492. https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev-soc-073014-112428
18. Rofel, Lisa. 2007. Desiring China: Experiments in Neoliberalism, Sexuality, and Public Culture. Duke University Press. https://www.dukeupress.edu/desiring-china
19. Wang, Yiran. 2019. Living through becoming. University of Amsterdam. https://pure.uva.nl/ws/files/39221565/Thesis_complete_.pdf
20. Whyte, Martin King. 2015. China’s Revolutions and Intergenerational Relations. University of Michigan Press. https://www.fulcrum.org/ebooks/3484zj724/download?locale=en
21. Zhang, Junsen. 2017. “The Evolution of China’s One-Child Policy and Its Effects on Family Outcomes.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 31(1):141–160. https://www.aeaweb.org/articles/pdf/doi/10.1257/jep.31.1.141
22. Zhao, Jamie J. 2022. “Queering/Queered Chinese-Language Cinematic and Cultural Imaginaries.” Jump Cut. https://scholars.cityu.edu.hk/files/141023528/134154829.pdf

Contemporaneous reports, institutional records, and public archives

23. Xinhua. 2006. “背母上学的刘霆 喜见母亲接受免费肾移植手术.” January 23, 2006. https://news.sina.com.cn/c/2006-01-23/10378058045s.shtml
24. Guilong News. 2006. “特别报道：慈母孝子兄弟情善良感动中国年.” January 27, 2006. https://news.sina.cn/sa/2006-01-27/detail-ikknscsi9596845.d.html
25. Jinri Zaobao. 2007a. “刘霆入选‘浙江骄傲’2006年度人物.” January 16, 2007. https://news.sina.com.cn/o/2007-01-16/091711010766s.shtml
26. Youth Times. 2007. “感动你我：‘浙江骄傲—2006年度最具影响力人物’揭晓.” January 16, 2007. https://news.sina.com.cn/o/2007-01-16/095911011960s.shtml
27. Jinri Zaobao. 2007b. “‘浙江骄傲’十大人物感言.” January 16, 2007. https://news.sina.com.cn/o/2007-01-16/091811010765s.shtml
28. Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China. 2007. “教育系统广大师生对评选表彰全国道德模范反响热烈.” September 20, 2007. https://www.moe.gov.cn/jyb_xwfb/gzdt_gzdt/moe_1485/tnull_26679.html
29. China News Service. 2014. “‘背母孝子’宣布将接受变性手术 河莉秀送婚纱鼓励.” August 14, 2014. https://www.chinanews.com/sh/2014/08-14/6494809.shtml
30. Beijing Times. 2014. “道德模范刘霆将做变性手术 称望得到社会包容.” August 18, 2014. https://politics.people.com.cn/n/2014/0818/c1001-25487114.html
31. China Daily. 2014. “刘霆(刘婷)将变性 胸部打造成为关注热点.” September 1, 2014. https://caijing.chinadaily.com.cn/2014-09/01/content_18524136.htm
32. Beijing Times. 2015a. “道德模范刘霆变性后穿短裙受访 称曾与导演接触.” April 8, 2015. https://www.chinanews.com.cn/sh/2015/04-08/7189927.shtml
33. China News Service. 2015a. “‘道德模范’在穗变性成美女：‘找到完整的自己’.” April 8, 2015. https://www.chinanews.com.cn/sh/2015/04-08/7193321.shtml
34. Yangcheng Evening News. 2015. “今日‘刘婷’变性不是道德的背叛.” April 9, 2015. https://news.ifeng.com/a/20150409/43517172_0.shtml
35. Beijing Youth Daily. 2015. “道德模范变性：道德并未变质.” April 9, 2015. https://www.chinanews.com.cn/sh/2015/04-09/7194142.shtml
36. The Paper. 2015. “从‘霆’到‘婷’，道德模范的破茧成蝶：这是我一直想做的事.” April 9, 2015. https://www.thepaper.cn/newsDetail_forward_1319297
37. CNR. 2015a. “全国道德模范‘刘婷’变性后亮相广州：道德模范的‘绑架’.” April 10, 2015. https://www.xinhuanet.com/politics/2015-04/10/c_127674524_3.htm
38. CNR. 2015b. “全国道德模范‘刘婷’变性后亮相广州.” April 10, 2015. https://news.cnr.cn/native/gd/20150410/t20150410_518279714.shtml
39. Xinhua. 2015a. “全国道德模范‘刘婷’变性后亮相广州.” April 10, 2015. https://www.xinhuanet.com/politics/2015-04/10/c_127674524_4.htm
40. China Daily. 2015. “全国道德模范‘刘婷’变性后亮相 美艳动人.” April 10, 2015. https://pic.chinadaily.com.cn/2015-04/10/content_20404533_4.htm
41. Xinjingbao. 2015. “道德模范变性前后：母亲曾失控哭倒在厕所.” April 13, 2015. https://www.xinhuanet.com/politics/2015-04/13/c_127680794.htm
42. Beijing Times. 2015b. “走上T台刘婷‘最美蝶变’.” September 23, 2015. https://www.chinanews.com/sh/2015/09-23/7538722.shtml
43. People’s Daily Online. 2015. “道德模范变性后走T台获奖 婉拒多名追求者.” September 23, 2015. https://politics.people.com.cn/n/2015/0923/c70731-27621620.html
44. Xinhua. 2015b. “走上T台 刘婷‘最美蝶变’.” September 23, 2015. https://www.xinhuanet.com/politics/2015-09/23/c_128258048.htm
45. Information Times. 2015. “‘道德模范’刘婷变性后参加选美.” September 23, 2015. https://news.ifeng.com/a/20150923/44713102_0.shtml
46. Zhejiang A&F University. 2016. “浙江农林大学‘刘霆孝心奖励基金’管理办法.” January 13, 2016. https://www.zafu.edu.cn/jyjjh/info/1033/1043.htm
47. Sohu. 2016. “广州美莱公益援助道德模范刘婷变性获赞.” July 18, 2016. https://www.sohu.com/a/106413012_162548
48. TransHistoria. 2026. “刘婷（中国，1986年出生）——从‘全国道德模范’到‘最美蝶变奖’获得者.” https://transhistoria.org/archives/node/150/