From Job-Search Barriers to Measured Workplace Discrimination: How Transgender Employment Evidence Took Shape in Mainland China, 2014–2026

Abstract

The public history of transgender employment in mainland China can be read through prominent lawsuits, and it can also be read through a second question: which records turned workplace experience into evidence that researchers, courts, organizations, and later readers could measure, compare, litigate, and verify? LGBT institutional reports and large surveys from 2014–2016 placed employment, income, disclosure, and employer policy inside a national research field. The Guiyang Mr C dispute from 2015–2018 translated one short employment relationship into arbitration, labor-contract, personality-rights, and equal-employment records. A 2017 survey released by the Beijing LGBT Center and Peking University’s Department of Sociology created a dedicated quantitative entry point for transgender and gender-nonconforming participants. The 2019 Hangzhou Xiaoma case and the Dangdang labor dispute around 2020 extended the record into post-transition return to work, long-term employment, medical leave, identity documents, workplace facilities, dismissal, and reinstatement. Research with transgender women and sex workers brought livelihood, violence, health, and informal labor into the same history (UNDP 2014, 2016; Suen, Chan & Badgett 2020; Beijing LGBT Center 2017; Yang 2019; Tsang 2020).

This report organizes evidence from 2014–2026 as an employment-evidence stack: livelihood narrative, employment-status survey, workplace disclosure and negative-treatment survey, transgender-specific survey, adjudicated employment dispute, field-specific labor research, organizational policy, and recruitment-stage records whose present public density remains comparatively thin. The central finding is evidence-interface densification. Surveys establish distributions within defined samples. Litigation preserves action chains. Transgender-specific surveys reconnect employment to family, education, health care, and documents. Field research explains livelihood strategies in particular labor settings. Organizational materials record formal protections. Recruitment evidence becomes durable when job descriptions, application records, communications, timestamps, and screening reasons survive together. As these interfaces multiply, denominator, employment stage, timing of employer knowledge, and source role become essential parts of every claim.

The report also proposes a disclosure-action ledger that records sample frame, identity classification, employment stage, disclosure state, timing of employer knowledge, document state, concrete action, comparator, and remedy or outcome. The ledger places disclosure, employer knowledge, adverse action, and legal finding at their proper points in time. It also makes current research gaps visible: pre-hire screening, internal implementation of employer policies, voluntary exit, and long-term career trajectories.

Keywords: transgender history; mainland China; employment; workplace discrimination; labor law; recruitment; survey history; sex work; evidence history

1. Research question: employment history is also evidence history

“Transgender people face job-search barriers” can refer to several different situations: screening during job seeking, questioning triggered by appearance or identity documents, identity concealment during employment, changes in colleague relations after disclosure, privacy exposure around medical leave, dress or facility arrangements, transfer, dismissal, reinstatement, or movement into informal labor and sex work. Each situation occupies a different point in the employment life cycle and produces a different documentary trail. Once those stages are separated, the historical questions become concrete: who recorded what, when was the record created, what was the denominator, when did an employer obtain identity-related information, and how was a later action connected to that information?

Reporting on the Guiyang Mr C dispute in 2016 made employment a concrete pressure within transgender public life and left an action sequence that employers, labor institutions, courts, journalists, and advocates could continue to document (China Development Brief 2016; China News Service 2016). During the same period, UNDP’s large LGBTI survey converted workplace openness, negative treatment, and employer policy into questionnaire variables. Suen, Chan, and Badgett later analyzed employment data from more than 10,000 LGBTI respondents in China. They reported that 5.1 percent were completely open about their gender and sexuality at work and that more than one-fifth reported negative workplace treatment. Transgender and intersex respondents reported higher rates of negative treatment, while employer anti-discrimination policies were significantly associated with lower negative-treatment reports (Suen, Chan & Badgett 2020). A broad statement about employment difficulty now had a sample, variables, and comparable outcomes.

The 2017 transgender-specific survey added another layer. The Beijing LGBT Center and Peking University’s Department of Sociology publicly released the study in November 2017 and described it as a large quantitative survey of transgender and gender-nonconforming people in mainland China. Its research frame connected family, education, health, social life, and work within one evidence infrastructure (Beijing LGBT Center 2017). Employment could therefore be studied together with educational credentials, family support, medical needs, mental health, social support, and identity-document pathways.

The historical change examined here is the multiplication of evidence interfaces. Institutional reports supply social context. Large surveys establish variable relationships. Transgender-specific surveys supply a dedicated denominator and cross-domain links. Litigation preserves actions and stated reasons. Field research enters particular labor settings. Organizational policy records formal rules. Each layer expands the questions that can be asked while retaining its own inferential range (UNDP 2014, 2016; Yang 2019; Lin et al. 2021).

2. Materials and method: denominator, stage, knowledge, and outcome

The source base covers 2014–2026 and includes peer-reviewed research, books and chapters, reports from international and community organizations, labor statutes and judicial materials, contemporaneous journalism, advocacy archives, and studies involving transgender women and sex workers. Priority goes to journal pages, government and court pages, original institutional releases, and community archives that preserve chronology. Journalism is used mainly for contemporaneous circulation and public statements. Academic research supplies variable relationships and historical interpretation. Legal sources supply institutional rules and case action chains (Brown 2006; Hildebrandt 2013; Wang & Liu 2020).

Comparison proceeds along four coordinates. The first is the denominator: an LGBTI-wide sample, a transgender-specific sample, transgender women, a city or labor-field sample, or one litigant. The second is the employment stage: job seeking, onboarding, probation, long-term employment, leave, transfer, dismissal, reinstatement, or exit. The third is the knowledge pathway: self-disclosure, gender expression, identity documents, medical materials, colleague relations, or other public information. The fourth is the outcome: employment status, income, disclosure, negative treatment, a specific employer action, a judicial result, compensation, reinstatement, or organizational policy.

These coordinates preserve scale. A large survey describes patterns among its participants. A case record reconstructs a particular employment relationship. A qualitative interview explains how people make disclosure, livelihood, and help-seeking decisions. Statutes define institutional entry points. Employer policies describe formal organizational rules. Keeping source type beside each conclusion shows which materials corroborate one another and which materials perform complementary work (Suen, Chan & Badgett 2020; Yan et al. 2019; Tsang 2020).

3. 2014–2016: employment enters large social surveys

UNDP’s China country report and its 2016 national LGBTI social-attitudes survey placed employment beside family, education, health care, and public services. “Identity at work” became a measurable object. Researchers could record workplace openness, negative treatment, employer anti-discrimination policies, and relationships with education, income, locality, and organizational conditions (UNDP 2014, 2016).

The employment analysis by Suen, Chan, and Badgett provides an important baseline. More than 10,000 LGBTI participants formed an unusually large Chinese employment dataset. The 5.1 percent who reported complete openness made disclosure a workplace variable. The finding that more than one-fifth reported negative treatment made workplace experience a distinct outcome. Higher negative-treatment reports among transgender and intersex respondents brought gender-identity differences into the larger sample (Suen, Chan & Badgett 2020). The significant association between formal employer anti-discrimination policies and fewer negative-treatment reports added organizational design to the same evidence model.

The sample frame defines the inferential range of these percentages. Participation came through particular outreach networks, voluntary response, and digital environments. Occupation, locality, organizational culture, document status, and personal safety judgments can all shape complete openness. A precise citation therefore keeps denominator and result together: among participants in a large Chinese LGBTI employment survey, 5.1 percent reported being completely open at work, more than one-fifth reported negative treatment, and transgender and intersex respondents reported higher rates (Suen, Chan & Badgett 2020).

This period also established a vocabulary for later comparison. Employment expanded from the simple state of having a job into a set of relationships: entry into work, disclosure, organizational policy, identity-group differences, and reported treatment. Employment history acquired relational variables.

4. 2015–2018: Mr C turns one employment relationship into an action chain

The Guiyang Mr C case produced a different evidence structure. Mr C joined a health-check company as a sales employee in 2015, and the employment relationship ended soon afterward. Over the next three years, the dispute moved through labor arbitration, labor litigation, personality-rights and equal-employment proceedings, and appeal. Wages, reasons for dismissal, gender expression, managerial statements, dignity, and differential treatment became items in a public record (China Development Brief 2016; China News Service 2016; Common Language 2018; Yang 2019).

The value of litigation lies in the action chain. A survey category such as “negative treatment” records a participant’s classification of experience. Litigation arranges dates, actors, reasons, documents, claims, and decisions. The labor-dispute track addressed termination and compensation. Later personality-rights and equal-employment proceedings brought gender identity, gender expression, dignity, and equal employment more explicitly into judicial discussion (GMA News/AFP 2016; Common Language 2018, 2020). Common Language’s 2020 retrospective also preserves a detailed sequence of arbitration, first instance, appeal, and expert participation, giving later researchers a way to check how the dispute was narrated across time.

This source type is strongest at specificity. One case can preserve who acted, when the action occurred, which explanation the company offered, what the claimant requested, and how a court responded. Its inferential range remains the employment relationship in question. A large survey works at another scale and describes patterns across participants. Read together, the two source types answer separate questions: how an experience is distributed in a sample, and how one concrete action becomes institutionally legible.

The Mr C case later circulated through journalism, advocacy archives, and academic research, illustrating cumulative archival visibility. A short employment relationship became a durable public-history node through preservation, citation, and reanalysis (Yang 2019; Common Language 2020).

5. 2017: a transgender-specific survey creates a dedicated employment denominator

On November 20, 2017, the Beijing LGBT Center and Peking University’s Department of Sociology publicly released the 2017 Chinese Transgender Population General Survey Report. The release described it as a large quantitative study of transgender and gender-nonconforming people in mainland China and linked to the report materials (Beijing LGBT Center 2017). The important historical change was a more specific denominator. Employment could now be examined within a sample designed around transgender and gender-nonconforming participants, giving the employment question a dedicated denominator.

That structure changes the interpretation of employment. Educational history shapes credentials and occupational opportunity. Family support shapes housing, mobility, and financial reserves during unemployment. Medical care shapes leave, privacy, and return-to-work arrangements. Identity documents enter onboarding, payroll, and social-insurance processes. Mental health, bullying, and violence shape continuity of work and access to support. Later Chinese research developed these relationships through studies of school experience, mental health, family stress, and health-care access (Peng et al. 2019; Lin et al. 2021; Chan, Suen & Leung 2024).

The sampling frame also becomes part of the historical record. Online recruitment, community reach, age, education, and regional structure shape the participant pool. The survey’s strongest use is the study of relationships among life domains within that recruited population. Population labor-market estimates require evidence with a matching population-sampling design. Recording recruitment and result together preserves both the richness and the inferential range of the survey.

From the perspective of evidence history, the 2017 project supplied a reusable variable vocabulary. Employment could be connected to family, school, medicine, documents, and social support within the same research object. Later work inherited a more precise set of entry points.

6. Sex-work research: employment evidence enters specific livelihood and risk fields

Part of the research on transgender women in China comes from HIV, health, violence, and sex-work studies. Yan and colleagues’ qualitative research in Jiangsu documents intersections among identity, stigma, intimate relations, health-care access, and HIV risk (Yan et al. 2019). She and colleagues study mental-health service utilization among transgender women sex workers in Shenyang, connecting minority stress and service use to a specific labor field (She et al. 2022). Tsang’s in-depth interviews with transgender sex workers in China document intimate-partner violence, informal “sister” networks, and mutual-aid resources, showing support mechanisms inside a high-risk livelihood environment (Tsang 2020).

These studies widen the meaning of employment evidence. Formal labor contracts preserve employment relationships, wages, and termination procedures. Sex work and other informal livelihood practices reveal client relations, violence exposure, peer networks, income strategies, and policing environments. Researchers can therefore distinguish several outcomes: earning income, maintaining stable work, working safely, and receiving formal labor protection. Labor risk also connects directly to health, housing, intimate relationships, and social support.

The labor-field label travels with the conclusion. Experiences of transgender women sex workers describe a specific population and labor environment. They provide detailed evidence about livelihood strategy and risk mechanisms. When read beside national LGBTI surveys, transgender-specific surveys, and individual cases, the labor setting itself becomes part of the denominator (Yan et al. 2019; She et al. 2022; Tsang 2020).

7. 2019–2020: Xiaoma and Dangdang add long-term employment, return to work, and reinstatement

The Hangzhou Xiaoma case is widely described in public reporting as China’s first transgender equal-employment-rights lawsuit. Reports state that Xiaoma had worked for a cultural-media company in Hangzhou for about three years. After gender-reassignment surgery in late 2018 and the issue of an updated female identity card, she returned to work. Human-resources staff discussed placement and encouraged her to resign, and the company later terminated her employment on attendance grounds. Xiaoma went through labor arbitration and then filed an equal-employment-rights lawsuit (RFA 2019). The evidentiary position of the case is therefore return to an existing job after transition, employer knowledge, and termination. It provides a useful temporal comparison with Mr C’s short employment relationship.

The Dangdang labor dispute around 2020 added another set of variables. Public legal materials place medical leave, privacy, legally registered identity, workplace facilities, colleague relations, termination, and reinstatement within a long-term employment relationship (Cornell LII 2020). Mr C, Xiaoma, and Dangdang therefore document different points in the employment life cycle: early employment, long-term work, medical leave, return to work, termination, and reinstatement. For each point, the timing of employer knowledge matters as much as the action itself.

Recruitment-stage evidence currently has a different public density. Supreme People’s Court Guiding Case No. 185, released in 2022 and based on a 2019 Hangzhou Internet Court dispute, concerns recruitment discrimination based on regional origin. It separates job requirements, the relevant personal characteristic, screening reasons, loss of opportunity, and causation into analyzable elements (Supreme People’s Court 2019, 2022). This case serves as a comparative framework for reading gender-related recruitment disputes while preserving the difference in protected characteristic. Direct, publicly verifiable transgender recruitment records remain relatively sparse in the current corpus. Job descriptions, application versions, communications, timestamps, and screening reasons are therefore priority archival objects for future work.

The difference in record density is itself historical evidence. Dismissal, arbitration, and litigation often generate continuous documents. Pre-contract screening depends more heavily on applicant-preserved materials. Record density should therefore be treated as its own variable; frequency of experience requires evidence designed to estimate frequency.

8. Organizational policy: from individual action to formal institutional conditions

One of the strongest findings in the large employment survey is the significant association between formal employer anti-discrimination policy and lower reports of negative treatment (Suen, Chan & Badgett 2020). This moves the history from individual experience toward organizational design. Recruitment templates, employee handbooks, anti-harassment procedures, complaint channels, benefit definitions, name and gender fields, facility arrangements, medical-leave rules, and manager training can all become independent research objects.

Organizational policy, implementation mechanisms, and worker experience answer separate questions. A policy document records a formal rule. A grievance procedure records how an organization receives and processes a complaint. Surveys and cases record experience and action. Placing the three layers side by side makes it possible to observe when a company adds gender-identity language, how that rule is implemented, and whether worker reports change over time. Separate policy and outcome timelines also create a clearer basis for causal analysis.

China’s Labor Law and Employment Promotion Law provide the general legal background for labor relations and equal employment. Local public-service materials and judicial cases show how equal-employment principles can be interpreted and operationalized (National People’s Congress Standing Committee 2007/2015, 2018; Shanghai Development and Reform Commission; Supreme People’s Court 2022). Transgender employment research then relies on cases, surveys, and organizational records to connect gender identity or gender expression with a particular employment action (Brown 2006; Yang 2019, 2024).

9. Original synthesis: the employment-evidence stack and the recruitment gap

The material can be organized into an employment-evidence stack:

livelihood narrative → LGBTI employment survey → transgender-specific survey → adjudicated employment dispute → field-specific labor research → organizational policy → recruitment-stage record

The stack is useful because the layers divide intellectual labor. Suen and colleagues provide workplace disclosure, negative-treatment, and policy associations. The 2017 survey creates cross-domain relationships within a transgender-specific sample. Mr C, Xiaoma, and Dangdang provide action chains at different employment stages. Yan, She, and Tsang provide risk and support mechanisms in specific livelihood settings. Organizational policy and general equal-employment law provide institutional background. The recruitment row simultaneously records an evidence gap, allowing established findings and research priorities to share one map.

10. Original tool: the disclosure-action ledger

A second tool is the disclosure-action ledger. For any employment source, record at least nine fields:

1. sample_frame: LGBTI survey, transgender-specific survey, city or labor-field sample, or individual case;
2. identity_category: how the source records gender identity;
3. employment_stage: job seeking, onboarding, probation, ordinary employment, leave, return to work, dismissal, reinstatement, or exit;
4. disclosure_state: degree and timing of identity disclosure;
5. employer_knowledge: when and through which material an employer obtained identity-related information;
6. document_state: relevant identity-card, educational, social-insurance, or medical-leave fields;
7. action: rejection, transfer, dress requirement, harassment, pay action, dismissal, or another concrete event;
8. comparison: other workers or applicants, another survey identity group, or the same organization across time;
9. remedy_or_outcome: grievance, arbitration, judgment, compensation, reinstatement, exit, or another result.

The ledger’s main contribution is chronological precision. Suen and colleagues’ 5.1 percent records complete workplace openness within a survey. The Mr C record preserves a specific termination and later judicial treatment. Xiaoma documents return to work after transition, employer knowledge, and termination. Dangdang materials connect medical leave, identity, and reinstatement. Once those facts sit on a time axis, researchers can ask what information an employer possessed at the moment of a particular action.

The same method improves work on documents. Identity cards, credentials, payroll, social insurance, and medical records can appear at different stages and carry different update dates. Treating document state, gender expression, active disclosure, and employer knowledge as separate fields reduces chronological slippage in later interpretation.

11. Counterevidence and limits: one theme contains several denominators

The largest comparison risk comes from denominator differences. Suen and colleagues analyze a large LGBTI sample. The 2017 report uses a transgender-specific online survey. Jiangsu and Shenyang studies focus on transgender women or sex workers. Litigation records concern individual employment relationships. Together they reveal several mechanisms of employment pressure while supporting different kinds of inference: sample distribution, cross-domain association, labor-field mechanism, and action chain (Suen, Chan & Badgett 2020; Beijing LGBT Center 2017; Yan et al. 2019; She et al. 2022).

A second boundary comes from operational definitions of discrimination. Survey “negative treatment” is a self-reported outcome. Judicial proceedings work with facts, stated reasons, evidence, claims, and legal rules. Advocacy materials often use broader public language. Phrases such as “the survey reports,” “the court record states,” “the claimant described,” and “the employer policy provides” preserve these source roles directly in prose.

A third boundary comes from archival selection. Litigation leaves case materials, reporting, and advocacy records and therefore often acquires high public visibility. Verbal pressure, voluntary exit, identity concealment, and pre-hire screening depend more heavily on participant-preserved records. Archival visibility measures the survival of verifiable material. Population distribution requires sampling evidence designed for that purpose.

A fourth boundary is time. Labor markets, platform recruitment, identity-document procedures, organizational policies, and public language changed across 2014, 2017, 2020, and 2026. Recording survey wave, legal version, and material date keeps institutional change and sample change analytically separate.

12. Research and editorial practice: citing transgender employment evidence

The first step is to keep denominator beside number. A precise formulation reads: among participants in a large Chinese LGBTI employment survey, 5.1 percent reported complete workplace openness and more than one-fifth reported negative treatment, with transgender and intersex respondents reporting higher rates (Suen, Chan & Badgett 2020). The sentence preserves both sample and result.

The second step is to identify employment stage. “Employment discrimination” can be resolved into pre-hire screening, termination during early employment, a conflict around gender expression, return to work after medical leave, dismissal, or reinstatement. Staging makes cross-case comparison much more reliable.

The third step is to identify evidence producer. “The survey reports,” “the court record states,” “the claimant publicly described,” “the institutional report records,” and “the employer policy provides” mark distinct observation positions and point future researchers toward corroborating material.

The fourth step is to preserve historical language in time. Journalism, judicial materials, and community archives from the 2010s used several terms for transition, identity, and expression. Current narration can use stable contemporary terminology while historical titles, proper names, quotations, and legal contexts retain period wording and date (Chiang 2018, 2021).

The fifth step is to record evidence gaps. Pre-hire screening, internal grievance handling, long-term career development, and voluntary exit currently have fewer continuous public records than prominent lawsuits. Making those gaps explicit can guide future archival preservation and survey design while keeping high-visibility cases in their proper evidentiary role.

Conclusion

From 2014–2026, the public history of transgender employment in mainland China developed through an increasingly dense chain of evidence. UNDP research and later scholarship turned workplace openness, negative treatment, and employer policy into large-survey variables. The Guiyang Mr C dispute translated a short employment relationship into arbitration, labor-contract, personality-rights, and equal-employment records. The 2017 transgender-specific survey reconnected employment to family, education, health care, documents, and social support. The Hangzhou Xiaoma and Dangdang disputes added long-term employment, return to work after transition or medical leave, identity records, dismissal, and reinstatement. Research with transgender women and sex workers brought livelihood, violence, health, and peer support into labor history.

The employment-evidence stack shows how these sources divide labor: narrative supplies lived mechanism; large surveys supply sample distribution; transgender-specific surveys supply cross-domain relationships; cases supply action chains; field-specific research supplies risk and support within particular labor markets; organizational policy supplies formal institutional conditions; recruitment records point toward a public archive that still needs expansion. The disclosure-action ledger connects identity classification, disclosure timing, employer knowledge, employment stage, document state, concrete action, comparator, and remedy on a verifiable timeline.

The main historical development is increasing specificity, clearer source roles, and more opportunities for cross-checking. The compressed idea of job-search barriers can now be unfolded into researchable questions: At which employment stage did an event occur? Who learned what, and when? Which document or rule entered the decision? What action followed? Who preserved the evidence? To which denominator does the conclusion apply? That evidence structure gives the history of transgender labor in mainland China a more durable basis for comparison, citation, and future research.

References

1. Chengming Yang. 2019. “The Implementation of International Law on the Equal Right of Labor of Transgender Minorities in China: Revisiting the Mr. C. Case.” Chinese Journal of International Law 18(1): 179–192. https://academic.oup.com/chinesejil/article-abstract/18/1/179/5479576
2. Yiu Tung Suen, Randolph C. H. Chan, and M. V. Lee Badgett. 2020. “The Experiences of Sexual and Gender Minorities in Employment: Evidence from a Large-scale Survey of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex People in China.” The China Quarterly. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/china-quarterly/article/abs/experiences-of-sexual-and-gender-minorities-in-employment-evidence-from-a-largescale-survey-of-lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender-and-intersex-people-in-china/44E502F55680C6C50DDACB3BDA5F700B
3. Yuanyuan Wang et al. 2020. “Mapping out a Spectrum of the Chinese Public’s Discrimination toward the LGBT Community: Results from a National Survey.” BMC Public Health. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32397988/
4. K. Peng et al. 2019. “Self-reported Rates of Abuse, Neglect, and Bullying Experienced by Transgender and Gender-Nonbinary Adolescents in China.” JAMA Network Open. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.11058
5. Zi-Han Yan et al. 2019. “Identity, Stigma, and HIV Risk among Transgender Women: A Qualitative Study in Jiangsu Province, China.” Infectious Diseases of Poverty. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40249-019-0606-9
6. Julia Spielmann et al. 2022. “Mental Health Contributors Among Transgender People in a Non-WEIRD Society: Evidence From China.” Social Psychological and Personality Science. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/19485506211039388
7. Randolph C. H. Chan, Yiu Tung Suen, and J. S. Y. Leung. 2024. “Gender Identity Differences in the Experiences of Family Stressors and Violence among Transgender and Non-binary Individuals in China.” Family Process. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/famp.12958
8. Lynette J. Chua. 2019. “Legal Mobilization and Authoritarianism.” Annual Review of Law and Social Science 15: 355–376. https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-101518-043026
9. Lynette J. Chua. 2022. “LGBTQ Rights Mobilization and Authoritarianism.” In Legal Mobilization for Human Rights. Oxford University Press. https://academic.oup.com/book/41941/chapter-abstract/355045221
10. Di Wang and Sida Liu. 2020. “Performing Artivism: Feminists, Lawyers, and Online Legal Mobilization in China.” Law & Social Inquiry 45(3): 678–705. https://doi.org/10.1017/lsi.2019.64
11. Ronald C. Brown. 2006. “China’s Employment Discrimination Laws during Economic Transition.” Columbia Journal of Asian Law 19(2). https://journals.library.columbia.edu/index.php/cjal/article/view/3250
12. Haonan Yang. 2023. “Dilemma of Employment Discrimination against American LGBT Employees and Its Judicial Response from the Perspective of China.” Labor History 64(5): 514–527. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0023656X.2023.2225428
13. Haonan Yang. 2024. “The Social Public Interest in China’s Employment Anti-discrimination Laws and Its Realisation Paths.” The International Journal of Human Rights 28(6): 912–935. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13642987.2024.2333534
14. Timothy Hildebrandt. 2013. Social Organizations and the Authoritarian State in China. Cambridge University Press. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/social-organizations-and-the-authoritarian-state-in-china/FB004059F8F20232B87F9CDC854AD31D
15. Howard Chiang. 2018. After Eunuchs: Science, Medicine, and the Transformation of Sex in Modern China. Columbia University Press. https://cup.columbia.edu/book/after-eunuchs/9780231546331/
16. Howard Chiang. 2021. Transtopia in the Sinophone Pacific. Columbia University Press. https://cup.columbia.edu/book/transtopia-in-the-sinophone-pacific/9780231190961/
17. Ausma Bernot, Fan Yang, and Sara E. Davies. 2025. “‘The Glowing Fireflies’: Invisible Activism under China’s Queer Necropolitics.” Convergence 31(3): 990–1008. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/13548565241288466
18. Stephanie Yingyi Wang. 2026. “Decolonizing Politics of (In)visibility and LGBT Rights—Being Queer/Tongzhi in China’s ‘New Normal’.” Sexualities. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/13634607261417775
19. Iris Yili Wang and Randolph C. H. Chan. 2024. “The Cultural Underpinnings of Transnegativity: Understanding the Role of Traditionality and Modernity in the Contemporary Chinese Context.” Current Psychology 43: 33252–33264. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12144-024-06825-5
20. Yezhe Lin et al. 2021. “The Mental Health of Transgender and Gender Non-conforming People in China: A Systematic Review.” The Lancet Public Health 6(12): e954–e969. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34838199/
21. She et al. 2022. “Mental Health Service Utilisation among Transgender Women Sex Workers Who Are at Risk of Mental Health Problems in Shenyang, China.” Health & Social Care in the Community. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hsc.13501
22. Eileen Yuk-ha Tsang. 2020. “A Sisterhood of Hope: How China’s Transgender Sex Workers Cope with Intimate Partner Violence.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17(21): 7959. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7672577/
23. Hongwei Bao. 2018. Queer Comrades: Gay Identity and Tongzhi Activism in Postsocialist China. NIAS Press. https://nottingham-repository.worktribe.com/output/1480891/queer-comrades-gay-identity-and-tongzhi-activism-in-postsocialist-china
24. 全国人民代表大会常务委员会. 2018. 《中华人民共和国劳动法》. https://www.npc.gov.cn/c2/c30834/201905/t20190521_296651.html
25. 全国人民代表大会常务委员会. 2007/2015. 《中华人民共和国就业促进法》. https://www.npc.gov.cn/npc/c2/c183/c198/201905/t20190522_27234.html
26. United Nations OHCHR. “International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Articles 6–7.” https://2covenants.ohchr.org/About-ICESCR.html
27. 上海市发展和改革委员会. 《劳动者享有平等就业和自主择业的权利》. https://fgw.sh.gov.cn/ys-laogong-1.2.2.1/
28. 最高人民法院. 2022. 《指导案例185号：闫佳琳诉浙江喜来登度假村有限公司平等就业权纠纷案》. https://www.court.gov.cn/fabu/xiangqing/364691.html
29. 菏泽市牡丹区人民法院. 2015. 《反就业歧视：司法审查的识别路径及立法完善建议》. https://www.sdcourt.gov.cn/hzmdqfy/400900/400865/1251689/index.html
30. 最高人民法院. 2019. 《杭州互联网法院宣判一起平等就业权纠纷案》. https://www.court.gov.cn/zixun/xiangqing/203171.html
31. UNDP. 2014. Being LGBT in Asia: China Country Report. https://www.undp.org/china/publications/being-lgbt-asia-china-country-report
32. UNDP. 2016. Being LGBTI in China: A National Survey on Social Attitudes towards Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Gender Expression. https://www.undp.org/china/publications/being-lgbti-china
33. China Development Brief. 2016. “First Transgender Employment Discrimination Case to Go to Arbitration.” https://chinadevelopmentbrief.org/reports/first-transgender-employment-discrimination-case-to-go-to-arbitration/
34. 中国新闻网. 2016. 《“女扮男装”员工被开除 当事人申请仲裁已获立案》. https://www.chinanews.com.cn/m/sh/2016/03-16/7799284.shtml
35. South China Morning Post / Associated Press. 2016. “China Hears First Transgender Discrimination Case.” https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/1935213/china-hears-first-transgender-discrimination-case
36. Taipei Times / New York Times News Service. 2016. “Job Discrimination Case Raises Questions of Transgender Rights in China.” https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2016/04/16/2003644056
37. GMA News / AFP. 2016. “China Transgender Man Loses Dismissal Case: Lawyer.” https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/topstories/world/565900/china-transgender-man-loses-dismissal-case-lawyer/story/
38. 北京同志中心. 2017. 《中国跨性别群体生存现状调查报告圆满发布》. https://www.chinadevelopmentbrief.org.cn/news/detail/17772.html
39. PinkNews. 2017a. “Chinese Court Rules That Man Was Illegally Fired but Not for Being Trans.” https://www.thepinknews.com/2017/01/02/chinese-court-rules-that-man-was-illegally-fired-but-not-for-being-trans/
40. PinkNews. 2017b. “China Just Prosecuted Its First Illegal Dismissal Case for Trans Man.” https://www.thepinknews.com/2017/01/03/china-just-prosecuted-its-first-illegal-dismissal-case-for-trans-man/
41. Taipei Times / Associated Press. 2017. “Chinese Trans Man Wins Case.” https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2017/07/29/2003675538
42. 成都商报/心同网. 2017. 《贵阳跨性别就业歧视案：公司被判赔偿》. https://m.1314xt.com/news/guonei/20170802/26936.html
43. 同语. 2018. 《中国法院首表态：单位看不惯员工性别表达？歧视！》. https://commonlanguage.github.io/TYarchives2018/20180205_1%E4%B8%AD%E5%9B%BD%E6%B3%95%E9%99%A2%E9%A6%96%E8%A1%A8%E6%80%81%EF%BC%9A%E5%8D%95%E4%BD%8D%E7%9C%8B%E4%B8%8D%E6%83%AF%E5%91%98%E5%B7%A5%E6%80%A7%E5%88%AB%E8%A1%A8%E8%BE%BE%EF%BC%9F%E6%AD%A7%E8%A7%86%EF%BC%81.html
44. 中央社. 2018. 《陸首例跨性別就業歧視案 當事人：我仍受歧視》. https://www.cna.com.tw/news/acn/201808060149.aspx
45. 同语. 2020. 《影响性诉讼⑦：这次，把“性别认同及性别表达”写进判决》. https://commonlanguage.github.io/TYarchives2020/20200518_1%E5%BD%B1%E5%93%8D%E6%80%A7%E8%AF%89%E8%AE%BC%E2%91%A6%E8%BF%99%E6%AC%A1%EF%BC%8C%E6%8A%8A%E2%80%9C%E6%80%A7%E5%88%AB%E8%AE%A4%E5%90%8C%E5%8F%8A%E6%80%A7%E5%88%AB%E8%A1%A8%E8%BE%BE%E2%80%9D%E5%86%99%E8%BF%9B%E5%88%A4%E5%86%B3.html
46. Radio Free Asia. 2019. 《中国跨性别就业平权第一案》. https://www.rfa.org/mandarin/yataibaodao/shehui/hj-12112019143336.html
47. Cornell Legal Information Institute. 2020. “Gao v. Beijing Dangdang Information Technology Co., Ltd. (2020).” https://www.law.cornell.edu/gender-justice/resource/Gao_v_Beijing_Dangdang_Information_Technology_Co_Ltd_2020
48. China Labour Bulletin. 2020. “Workplace Discrimination.” https://clb.org.hk/en/content/workplace-discrimination