From Early Surgical Records to a Gender Clinic: An Annotated Guide to Peking University Third Hospital’s Transgender-Medicine Public Archive, 1983–2026

Abstract

Peking University Third Hospital (PUH3) has left an unusually long public record in the history of transgender medicine in mainland China. A 2026 memorial article about plastic surgeon Wang Damei dates an early gender-reassignment operation to January 10, 1983. A 2012 departmental anniversary history preserves a 1984 date for an early operation. Around 2016, transgender-related care entered public records of a multidisciplinary team and clinic. A 2018 team page, a 2025 appointment guide, national surveys, and clinical research published from 2020 through 2026 then recorded service pathways, hormone use, barriers to care, and research cohorts (PUH3 Department of Plastic Surgery 2012a, 2018, 2025, 2026a; Liu et al. 2020; Hou et al. 2026; Cai et al. 2026).

This guide reads these materials as an institutional public archive and proposes an institutional archive ladder: surgical case → departmental memory → team announcement → clinic guide → survey collaboration → clinical cohort → public research output. Each rung answers a different historical question and carries its own date of creation and revision. Three clocks organize the evidence: event_time for the medical or organizational event, record_time for the creation of the surviving text, and revision_time for later webpage updates, republication, or archival capture. The 1983/1984 date difference and the relationship among a 2016 team or clinic, a 2017 service account, and a 2018 “team established” webpage thereby become traceable versions in an archive.

The same source sequence shows a second transformation. The center of the medical record expanded from a single operation toward psychology, endocrinology, plastic surgery, reproduction, voice, follow-up, and longitudinal care. The object of research expanded from an individual case toward national surveys and hospital cohorts. This article calls that process record migration. A case record establishes that a clinical event occurred. A clinic guide publishes a service interface. A survey or cohort quantifies who reaches care, how hormones are obtained, and which access pressures persist. The result is both an institutional history and an annotated-source guide for distinguishing hospital self-description, contemporaneous regulation, peer-reviewed research, community-preserved copies, and later historical synthesis.

Keywords: transgender history; China; Peking University Third Hospital; gender medicine; medical history; institutional archives; gender-affirming care; digital archives

1. Research question: how does a hospital become a searchable historical object?

Histories of transgender medicine in mainland China often appear as a small set of prominent nodes: early gender-reassignment operations, national medical-technology rules, transgender clinics, national surveys, and hormone-therapy studies. Returning those nodes to one institution reveals a more detailed process. PUH3’s Department of Plastic Surgery, Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism, hospital communications, and clinician-facing public pages generated several kinds of records across more than four decades. Outside the hospital, national health rules, Beijing LGBT Center surveys, ClinicalTrials.gov, the Trans Chinese Digital Archive, aboutTrans, clinician videos, and interviews preserved additional views of the same service network (Ministry of Health 2009; National Health Commission 2022; Beijing LGBT Center & Department of Sociology, Peking University 2017; ClinicalTrials.gov 2024; Trans Chinese Digital Archive 2026).

The central question is: how do these materials collectively form a public archive of transgender medicine at one hospital, and what can each source type establish? A memorial article can show how an institution remembers an early clinical event. A clinic guide can document a service interface at a particular moment. A national regulation can establish the formal boundary for surgical technology. A national survey can characterize demand and access. A hospital cohort can turn repeated clinical contact into a statistical sample. Historical value emerges from the relationships among these source types.

This approach joins questions from transgender history, medical history, and web-archive research. Hickman treats trans history as a flourishing field that continually revisits its source boundaries and historiographical methods. Brügger’s work on web archives emphasizes capture date, version, and platform conditions as properties of a historical webpage. Howard Chiang’s history of sexology and sex transformation in modern China follows knowledge across medicine, science, print culture, and social institutions (Hickman 2021; Brügger 2018; Chiang 2018). PUH3 compresses these questions into one institutional case: clinical events acquire later institutional memories; webpages acquire revisions and archival copies; medical categories move across professional and public systems.

2. Method: an institutional archive ladder and three clocks

The sources fall into seven levels. The first level consists of retrospective records of particular clinical events, such as the 2026 Wang Damei memorial account of the 1983 operation. The second consists of departmental and hospital histories that place individual cases inside disciplinary development. The third consists of team announcements that name multidisciplinary organization. The fourth consists of clinic and appointment guides that record service interfaces, scheduling, and types of care. The fifth consists of national surveys and community collaborations connecting clinicians to a wider transgender population. The sixth consists of clinical cohorts, trial registrations, and peer-reviewed papers that record people entering formal care over time. The seventh consists of archived copies and community indexes that preserve discovery continuity as public webpages change.

Together these levels form an institutional archive ladder:

Surgical case → departmental memory → team announcement → clinic guide → survey collaboration → clinical cohort → public research output

Each record receives three clocks. event_time points to an operation, team formation, clinic opening, survey, or period of patient contact. record_time points to the date of the surviving article, webpage, registry entry, or paper. revision_time points to a later webpage update, republication, or archival capture. A 2026 memorial article can describe a 1983 event. A 2018 team page can describe a service relationship already active earlier. A 2026 clinical paper can analyze visits from 2016 through 2024. Each date remains attached to its own historical function.

Source role also requires an explicit field. PUH3 pages serve as institutional self-description and service records. National health rules serve as regulatory records. Peer-reviewed papers serve as research records. Community organizations, digital archives, and clinician public education serve as service-use, interpretation, and preservation records. Claims such as “first operation,” “first clinic,” or “established in” receive a source, a date, and a claim scope. Date differences can then remain visible while research continues toward records closer to the event, such as contemporaneous case summaries, administrative records, newspapers, or personal materials.

3. First rung: 1983 and 1984 — early surgery survives first as institutional memory

In January 2026, PUH3’s plastic-surgery service published a memorial essay about Professor Wang Damei with a detailed chronology. The article states that Zhang Kesha, later publicly known as Zhang Kesha with a feminine given-name form, entered the hospital on January 3, 1983, underwent surgery on January 10, and spent approximately twelve hours in the operation. The hospital calls it China’s first male-to-female gender-reassignment operation and describes psychiatric documentation, parental signatures, hospital advocacy, and higher-level approval around the case (PUH3 Department of Plastic Surgery 2026a). The page preserves a clinical milestone, an administrative pathway, and a later institutional evaluation in a single narrative.

Earlier institutional history preserves another year. PUH3’s 2012 sixtieth-anniversary materials for plastic surgery place 1984 in the timeline of early “sex-change surgery” at the department (PUH3 Department of Plastic Surgery 2012a, 2012b). The two versions create a productive archive question. The 1983 version comes with month-and-day detail in a later memorial narrative; the 1984 version comes from an anniversary chronology. GenderLibs’ earlier study of documentary regimes used this difference as an example of institutional memory. Focusing on one hospital allows another distinction: memorial biography tends to reconstruct scenes, actors, and process, while an anniversary timeline compresses decades into milestone labels (GenderLibs 2026).

The episode belongs inside a longer Chinese history of sexological and medical knowledge. Chiang traces concepts of castration, sex transformation, bodily difference, and sexual science across twentieth-century medicine and public culture, demonstrating that the vocabulary and clinical imagination surrounding sex change had deeper intellectual genealogies than a single hospital case (Chiang 2012, 2018). The early-1980s operation therefore linked existing sexological knowledge, plastic-surgery techniques, psychiatric classification, and administrative approval. Later hospital webpages transformed a highly confidential clinical episode into an institutional origin story.

This first rung is strongest for the question “how does the hospital now remember the early event?” Historical citation becomes more precise when the page publication date accompanies the recalled event date and the older anniversary version remains in the source card. A contemporaneous case record, hospital meeting record, or 1980s newspaper report would sit closer to event_time and could refine the chronology further.

4. Second rung: 2009–2022 — national rules turn an individual surgical technique into a regulated interface

The hospital chronology intersects clearly with national medical-technology regulation after 2009. The Ministry of Health’s 2009 Technical Management Standards for Sex-Reassignment Surgery (Trial) placed the procedure inside a formal system governing institutional qualifications, practitioner qualifications, ethics, patient criteria, and quality management (Ministry of Health 2009). A 2017 restricted-clinical-technology framework revised the surrounding management system. The 2022 national restricted-technology standards use the term “gender reassignment technology” under code G05 and establish another identifiable regulatory version (National Health and Family Planning Commission 2017; National Health Commission 2022).

This regulatory sequence helps explain why PUH3’s public archive contains several vocabularies at once: yixingzheng, “sex-change surgery,” “gender reassignment technology,” “transgender,” and “gender medicine.” Each term belongs to a record layer. Diagnostic and clinic terms organize a care pathway. National technical names organize regulation. Community and research terms organize survey populations and public communication. Deng’s review of DSM-5 gender-dysphoria classification, Reed and colleagues’ description of ICD-11, and WPATH’s SOC7 and SOC8 provide the parallel chronology of international diagnostic and professional guidance (Deng 2016; Reed et al. 2019; Coleman et al. 2012, 2022).

The 2009 and 2022 national documents serve as particularly stable archive anchors. A clinic webpage can change repeatedly; a government document carries a publication date, issuing body, administrative identifier, attachment, and technical category. Researchers can use those documents as institutional time markers and compare hospital organization on either side of a regulatory revision.

5. Third rung: 2016–2018 — multidisciplinary care takes shape across team, clinic, and webpage dates

The most instructive cluster of dates in PUH3’s transgender-medicine public archive appears between 2016 and 2018. aboutTrans records a multidisciplinary sequence-care team formed in 2016, integrating psychology, endocrinology, reproductive medicine, otolaryngology, general surgery, and plastic surgery; it places a comprehensive clinic in 2017 and a gender-affirming medical forum in 2018 (aboutTrans 2026). A 2026 PUH3-linked clinical paper states directly that the team established a multidisciplinary gender clinic in 2016 and analyzes data from clinic visits beginning in January 2016 (Cai et al. 2026).

The surviving PUH3 plastic-surgery webpage titled “PUH3 Yixingzheng Sequence Medical Team Established,” meanwhile, carries a publication date of September 18, 2018. It describes psychological consultation, endocrine therapy, urological or andrological care, plastic surgery, otolaryngology, and other components of sequence care (PUH3 Department of Plastic Surgery 2018). The webpage date and the operational start date serve different functions: the former is record_time; the latter is event_time. Treating September 2018 as the beginning of all team activity would erase the earlier service record, while assigning a 2016 date to the existing webpage would erase the document’s publication history.

Digital preservation adds another clock. The Trans Chinese Digital Archive maintains a PDF copy of the team material and records archive metadata about the preserved object (Trans Chinese Digital Archive 2026). Researchers can therefore store a sequence such as team_event = 2016, clinic_event = 2017, institutional_page = 2018-09-18, and archive_copy = later preservation record. The point of the sequence is provenance: each date points to a different action.

International professional guidance provides context for this local organizational form. WPATH SOC7, published in 2012, articulated a multidisciplinary model of transgender health. The Endocrine Society’s 2017 guideline made coordination with broader mental-health and surgical services explicit. SOC8 in 2022 expanded and reorganized chapters covering adult assessment, adolescents, hormones, surgery, primary care, reproduction, voice, mental health, and long-term care (Coleman et al. 2012; Hembree et al. 2017; Coleman et al. 2022). PUH3’s multidisciplinary pages can thus be read as a Chinese hospital’s institutional organization within a changing global professional field.

6. Fourth rung: 2017–2025 — a clinic guide translates a team into a patient-facing interface

A multidisciplinary team is an organizational fact. A clinic guide converts that organization into an interface a patient can use. PUH3’s 2018 materials describe comprehensive yixingzheng care and sequence treatment. Its 2025 Comprehensive Diagnosis and Treatment Appointment Guide gives a much more operational service map: initial consultation, initiation of endocrine treatment, hormone follow-up, and consultation about principal gender-reassignment surgery all belong to specialized appointments; four clinicians operate five weekly clinic units, with appointments routed through the hospital service account (PUH3 Department of Plastic Surgery 2018, 2025).

This source layer is especially useful for a history of accessibility. A clinic guide describes how an institution expects formal care to work. National and community surveys describe how transgender people actually seek care. The 2017 Chinese transgender population survey produced 2,060 valid questionnaires. Liu and colleagues later analyzed 1,304 transgender men and women from that survey: among respondents who desired hormone therapy, a large majority described physician access as difficult; among hormone users, many reported informal sources and irregular monitoring; many respondents also characterized surgery resources as scarce (Beijing LGBT Center & Department of Sociology, Peking University 2017; Liu et al. 2020). Chen and colleagues’ national-population analysis recorded high lifetime levels of suicidal ideation and suicide attempts, placing medical access within a wider psychological and family context (Chen et al. 2019).

The 2022 national technical standard and the 2025 clinic guide form a useful rule–interface pair. One specifies the regulatory framework for restricted medical technology. The other shows how a particular hospital exposes consultations and follow-up. Bailin Pan’s public interviews and Bilibili medical-education videos add an interpretive interface: questions about diagnosis documents, surgical eligibility, hormone therapy, fertility, family communication, and the changing national rules are translated into short public explanations (Pan 2022, 2023; GQ-related interview reprint 2022).

For this rung, a historical source card can store service_scope, appointment_channel, clinic_units_per_week, published_at, and retrieved_at. Appointment details are highly time-sensitive, so a historical guide benefits from an explicit publication date every time it cites a current service arrangement.

7. Fifth rung: the 2017 and 2021 national surveys — the institution becomes a collaborator in knowledge production

After 2017, PUH3’s public archive changes in another way: community survey data and academic publication place the hospital inside national-scale knowledge production. The 2017 transgender population survey was organized through Beijing LGBT Center and the Department of Sociology at Peking University and yielded 2,060 valid questionnaires (Beijing LGBT Center & Department of Sociology, Peking University 2017). Those data later supported studies of gender-affirming care and mental health (Liu et al. 2020; Chen et al. 2019). The author affiliations on Liu and colleagues’ paper directly connect PUH3’s Transgender Clinic with Beijing LGBT Center, making the collaboration visible in the scholarly record.

The 2021 Chinese Transgender Health Survey expanded the range of topics to gender-affirming health care, general medical experiences, mental health, family relationships, and gender-identity conversion practice. A 2023 Nature Mental Health paper analyzed 7,576 mainland respondents and examined conversion practice alongside depression, anxiety, trauma symptoms, suicidality, self-injury, and substance use. A 2026 JAMA Network Open study drew 4,296 transgender men and women from the same survey wave to study gender-identity milestones and hormone utilization (Beijing LGBT Center / Beijing Tongzhi Center archive 2021; Wang et al. 2023; Hou et al. 2026). PUH3’s Department of Endocrinology then published an institutional explainer about the JAMA paper, creating a visible sequence from national survey to peer-reviewed article to hospital public communication (PUH3 Department of Endocrinology 2026).

The archive therefore expands beyond case notes and clinic webpages. Survey data aggregate thousands of experiences into variables. Peer-reviewed papers define samples, methods, outcomes, and limitations. Hospital news translates those research results into institutional public memory. Sample scope must remain attached to each layer. The 2017 survey’s 2,060 valid questionnaires, Liu’s 1,304 transgender men and women, and later 2021-survey analyses of 7,576 or 4,296 respondents address distinct research questions. Those numbers describe analytic subsets and study designs, each tied to a distinct research question and sampling frame.

8. Sixth rung: 2012–2026 clinical cohorts — the clinic itself becomes a longitudinal record

National surveys provide breadth. Hospital cohorts provide another kind of temporal density. A 2024 study of antiandrogen use among Chinese transgender women reviewed PUH3 records from 2012 through 2021, identified 639 transgender women, and selected a treatment-stable analytic sample to compare cyproterone acetate and spironolactone in hormone therapy (Yang et al. 2024). The dataset reaches back before the public chronology of the multidisciplinary clinic, showing how a later research cohort can expose earlier patterns of clinical contact.

Cai and colleagues’ 2026 study reviewed 1,297 cases from the PUH3 Gender Clinic between January 2016 and November 2024 and included 826 people in the final analysis. About sixty percent reported self-medication before the clinic visit, and most self-medication sources were outside formal medical channels (Cai et al. 2026). This paper places the formal clinic and pre-clinic medication pathways inside the same dataset. It therefore pairs especially well with the 2017 national survey. Across two source designs and almost a decade, formal medical access and community self-sourcing remain central empirical questions (Liu et al. 2020; Cai et al. 2026).

ClinicalTrials.gov supplies a further kind of third-party research timestamp. The China Gender-affirming Hormone Therapy Study (CGAHT), sponsored by PUH3, describes a prospective framework for social and mental-health characteristics among people seeking formal GAHT and for physical and psychological outcomes during treatment. The registry shows updates through November 2024 (ClinicalTrials.gov 2024). A trial registry therefore sits between a clinic webpage and a completed article: it publicly records a research plan, sponsor, study status, and update history.

Hospital cohorts also require geographic and referral-context boundaries. Yan and colleagues documented high HIV prevalence and limited gender-affirming care among transgender women recruited in Nanjing and Suzhou. Chen and colleagues analyzed three cross-sectional studies conducted mainly in Shenyang from 2014 through 2019. Recent research on Chinese transgender men continues to identify variation by age, education, income, region, and digital medication channels (Yan et al. 2019; Chen et al. 2024; He et al. 2026). These comparisons position PUH3 as one important Beijing service and research site inside a multi-regional history of transgender health care in China.

9. Counterevidence and boundaries: continuity and selection operate together

An institutional public archive has strong continuity because a hospital can maintain departmental history, service pages, clinician profiles, and research outputs across decades. It also has a clear selection mechanism. Early cases enter anniversary histories because they carry technical or disciplinary significance. Clinic pages record services offered by the institution. Cohort papers record people who reached a service and met study criteria. National surveys record people reachable through survey distribution networks who completed questionnaires. Each source amplifies a particular population and institutional action.

The 2017 survey used online and snowball-style distribution; Liu and colleagues focused on transgender men and women within that dataset. The 2021 survey expanded the sample and subject range. PUH3 clinical cohorts begin with people who reached the hospital. The Liu, Hou, and Cai papers thus offer complementary sampling frames tied to different survey and care-entry pathways (Liu et al. 2020; Hou et al. 2026; Cai et al. 2026). Dahlkemper and colleagues’ review of transgender health care in China, Amnesty International’s interviews about treatment barriers, and UNDP’s policy study of legal gender recognition add costs, family relationships, administrative procedures, information access, and regional variation beyond the hospital record (Dahlkemper et al. 2019; Amnesty International 2019; UNDP 2018).

Terminology is part of source selection as well. Earlier hospital and administrative records use diagnostic and technical terms of their periods. Recent scholarship uses transgender, gender dysphoria, gender incongruence, and gender-affirming care more frequently. ICD-11, WPATH SOC8, and China’s 2022 technical standard provide dated reference points for classification and professional-language change (Reed et al. 2019; Coleman et al. 2022; National Health Commission 2022). Historical description can preserve original titles and policy terms in source fields while using present-day discovery terms in explanatory metadata.

10. Original synthesis: write the hospital history as record migration

Across more than four decades, PUH3’s materials show a reusable model for medical history: a clinical event migrates into an expanding set of record media. An early operation first exists through clinical memory, case documentation, and administrative experience. An anniversary history compresses it into a disciplinary milestone. A memorial article later expands the actors, dates, and process. A multidisciplinary team writes care as an organizational relationship. A clinic guide writes organization as a patient-facing interface. A survey writes needs as variables. A clinical cohort writes repeated service contact as analyzable data. Papers, trial registries, and digital archives then place those data and webpages into wider public knowledge infrastructures.

The migration can be represented as:

clinical_event → institutional_memory → service_interface → survey_variable → cohort_record → publication → archived_public_evidence

Three practical rules follow. First, each fact carries event_time / record_time / revision_time, keeping version differences visible. Second, claims such as “first,” “first clinic,” and “established” carry claim_scope / claim_source / claim_date, so institutional self-description and external scholarship retain explicit provenance. Third, webpages carry source_role / archive_copy / retrieved_at, linking dynamic service information to historical citation.

For AI agents and digital-humanities systems, the same approach yields a compact data model:

archive_record = {event, institution, department, source_role, event_time, record_time, revision_time, original_term, claim_scope, sample_scope, url, archive_url, confidence}

One event can have several archive_record objects. The 1983 and 1984 surgery dates point to different institutional sources. The 2016, 2017, and 2018 dates can point to team operation, a comprehensive clinic, and the surviving announcement. The 2025 appointment guide represents a service interface at that date. A 2026 paper represents analysis of earlier clinic visits or the 2021 national survey. Retrieval can then sort records by event, institution, source role, or version while preserving the history of how knowledge was made.

11. Annotated source map: where to start for each research task

The following order is organized by research task, with each source group matched to a concrete verification question.

This map also shows where future archival work has the highest value: records closer to the 1980s event_time; preserved versions from the 2016–2018 clinic-formation period; repeated captures of appointment guides; and links from new cohort papers back to their sampling periods and original care interfaces. Institutional history can then operate as a growing versioned corpus.

Conclusion

PUH3’s transgender-medicine public archive records more than four decades of record migration. Early-1980s surgery entered history through a clinical event and later institutional memory. National rules from 2009 through 2022 supply regulatory time markers. The multidisciplinary team and clinic records of 2016–2018 organize transgender medicine as continuing care. The 2025 appointment guide exposes that organization as a patient-facing interface. The 2017 and 2021 national surveys, hospital cohorts, CGAHT registry, and 2026 papers turn service demand and treatment experience into research data.

The archive gains much of its historical value from its temporal layering. A 2026 article looks back to 1983; a 2012 departmental history preserves a 1984 version. A 2018 webpage describes a team with earlier operational history. A 2026 paper analyzes clinic visits from 2016 through 2024. Three clocks—event, record, and revision—make those differences legible as evidence. Researchers can therefore build a revisable institutional history that places hospital self-description, national regulation, community surveys, patient interfaces, clinical research, and digital preservation inside one evidence map.

References

Academic and research sources

1. Chiang, Howard. 2012. “How China Became a ‘Castrated Civilization’ and Eunuchs a ‘Third Sex.’” Historical Reflections. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41289833
2. 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
3. Hickman, R. 2021. “What Is ‘Trans History’, Anyway?: Historiographical Theory and Practice in a Flourishing Field.” Midlands Historical Review. http://www.midlandshistoricalreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/What-is-%E2%80%98trans-history-anyway_.pdf
4. Brügger, Niels. 2018. The Archived Web: Doing History in the Digital Age. MIT Press. https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262537879/the-archived-web/
5. Liu, Ye, Ying Xin, Ji Qi, et al. 2020. “The Desire and Status of Gender-Affirming Hormone Therapy and Surgery in Transgender Men and Women in China: A National Population Study.” The Journal of Sexual Medicine 17(11): 2291–2298. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32868262/
6. Chen, Runsen, Xuequan Zhu, et al. 2019. “Suicidal Ideation and Attempted Suicide Amongst Chinese Transgender Persons: National Population Study.” Journal of Affective Disorders. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30699856/
7. Yan, Hongjing, Wenjing Xiao, Yunting Chen, et al. 2019. “High HIV Prevalence and Associated Risk Factors Among Transgender Women in China: A Cross-Sectional Survey.” Journal of the International AIDS Society 22(11): e25417. https://doi.org/10.1002/jia2.25417
8. Dahlkemper, J., B. Diaz, F. Lawanson, et al. 2019. Transgender Health Care in China. https://cnlgbtdata.com/files/uploads/2020/04/Transgender_Helathcare_in_China.pdf
9. Lin, T., Y. Cheng, T. L. Hughes, et al. 2022. “LGBTQ Health and Wellbeing in China: A Trend Analysis of English- and Chinese-Language Research, 2011–2018.” https://www.moderntreatise.com/s/LGBTQ-Health-and-Wellbeing-in-China-A-Trend-Analysis-of-English-and-Chinese-Language-Research-201120.pdf
10. Deng, Mingyu. 2016. “性别苦恼的临床研究新进展（DSM-5新标准）.” 中国健康心理学杂志. https://digital.transchinese.org/学术文献/医学/性别苦恼的临床研究新进展DSM-5_新标准.pdf
11. Coleman, Eli, Walter Bockting, Marsha Botzer, et al. 2012. “Standards of Care for the Health of Transsexual, Transgender, and Gender-Nonconforming People, Version 7.” International Journal of Transgenderism 13(4): 165–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/15532739.2011.700873
12. Coleman, Eli, A. E. Radix, W. P. Bouman, et al. 2022. “Standards of Care for the Health of Transgender and Gender Diverse People, Version 8.” International Journal of Transgender Health 23(S1): S1–S259. https://doi.org/10.1080/26895269.2022.2100644
13. Hembree, Wylie C., Peggy T. Cohen-Kettenis, Henriette A. Delemarre-van de Waal, et al. 2009. “Endocrine Treatment of Transsexual Persons: An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline.” Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism 94(9): 3132–3154. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19509099/
14. Hembree, Wylie C., Peggy T. Cohen-Kettenis, Louis Gooren, et al. 2017. “Endocrine Treatment of Gender-Dysphoric/Gender-Incongruent Persons: An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline.” Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism 102(11): 3869–3903. https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/102/11/3869/4157558
15. Reed, Geoffrey M., Michael B. First, Cary S. Kogan, et al. 2019. “Innovations and Changes in the ICD-11 Classification of Mental, Behavioural and Neurodevelopmental Disorders.” World Psychiatry 18(1): 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20611
16. Reisner, Sari L., Tonia Poteat, JoAnne Keatley, et al. 2016. “Global Health Burden and Needs of Transgender Populations: A Review.” The Lancet 388(10042): 412–436. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27323919/
17. Wang, Yuanyuan, et al. 2023. “A National Transgender Health Survey from China Assessing Gender Identity Conversion Practice, Mental Health, Substance Use and Suicidality.” Nature Mental Health. https://www.nature.com/articles/s44220-023-00041-z
18. Yang, Wenhui, Tianpei Hong, Xu Chang, et al. 2024. “The Efficacy of and User Satisfaction with Different Antiandrogens in Chinese Transgender Women.” International Journal of Transgender Health 25(3): 471–482. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39055628/
19. Hou, Jiayu, Bailin Pan, Yinuo Chen, et al. 2026. “Gender Identity Milestones and Hormone Utilization in Transgender Men and Women in China.” JAMA Network Open 9(1): e2552440. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2843496
20. Cai, Yueting, Xu Chang, Yulin Dong, et al. 2026. “Current Status and Characteristics of Self-Medication with Gender-Affirming Hormones Among Individuals with Gender Dysphoria in China.” International Journal of Transgender Health. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC13352525/
21. Chen, Hui, Yingjie Chen, Shangbin Liu, et al. 2024. “Trends in HIV Prevalence, Sexual Behavior, and Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis Willingness Among Transgender Women: An Analysis of Three Cross-Sectional Studies Conducted Mainly in Shenyang, China, 2014–2019.” Transgender Health. https://doi.org/10.1089/trgh.2022.0081
22. He, Jiaxin, Jiangxiong Li, Xingyi Liu, et al. 2026. “Disparities in Healthcare Services and Gender-Affirming Hormone Therapy Among Chinese Transgender Men by Age, Education, Economy, and Region.” Transgender Health. https://doi.org/10.1177/26884887261431681
23. Liu, Sha. 2023. Performative Authenticity: Chinese Transgender People’s Digital Gender Practices. PhD thesis, London School of Economics. https://etheses.lse.ac.uk/4608/
24. Engebretsen, Elisabeth L., William F. Schroeder, and Hongwei Bao, eds. 2015. Queer/Tongzhi China: New Perspectives on Research, Activism and Media Cultures. NIAS Press. https://cnlgbtdata.com/files/uploads/2024/06/Queer_Tongzhi_China.pdf
25. Liu, Yunsheng, and Zhaojun Wu. 2018. “性别选择权：性质界定与法权塑造.” 东北师大学报（哲学社会科学版）. https://digital.transchinese.org/学术文献/法律/性别选择权性质界定与法权塑造.pdf

Institutional, policy, community, and archival sources

26. PUH3 Department of Plastic Surgery. 2012a. “北医三院整形外科60年画册附录.” https://www.sar.com.cn/xinwen/syyydt/4132.html
27. PUH3 Department of Plastic Surgery. 2012b. “60年专题.” https://www.sar.com.cn/zt60/
28. PUH3 Department of Plastic Surgery. 2018. “北医三院易性症序列医疗团队成立.” https://www.sar.com.cn/xinwen/news/12295.html
29. PUH3 Department of Plastic Surgery. 2025. “北医三院易性症综合诊疗就诊指南.” https://www.puh3.net.cn/zxwk/info/1005/4211.htm
30. PUH3 Department of Plastic Surgery. 2026a. “妙手换新颜 传承至美——纪念王大玫教授.” https://www.sar.com.cn/xinwen/syyydt/13337.html
31. PUH3 Department of Endocrinology. 2026. “北医三院性别医学团队在JAMA Network Open发表跨性别相关研究成果.” https://www.puh3.net.cn/nfmk/info/1271/4602.htm
32. PUH3 Department of Endocrinology. 2026. “科室简介.” https://puh3.net.cn/nfmk/ksjj.htm
33. Ministry of Health of the PRC. 2009. “关于印发《变性手术技术管理规范（试行）》的通知（卫办医政发〔2009〕185号）.” https://www.nhc.gov.cn/zwgk/wtwj/201304/5a310ec69d264d4a890949d0b2fbcaf7.shtml
34. National Health and Family Planning Commission. 2017. “限制临床应用医疗技术管理规范和质量控制指标.” https://wjw.shanxi.gov.cn/tzgg/zcwj/202203/t20220311_5330105.shtml
35. National Health Commission of the PRC. 2022. “国家限制类技术目录和临床应用管理规范（2022年版）.” https://www.nhc.gov.cn/yzygj/c100068/202204/2655831f6f444b00b3e50604e67531f5.shtml
36. Beijing LGBT Center & Department of Sociology, Peking University. 2017. 2017中国跨性别群体生存现状调查报告：跨性别者与非性别常规者. https://cnlgbtdata.com/doc/43/
37. Beijing LGBT Center / Beijing Tongzhi Center archive. 2021. “2021年全国跨性别健康调研.” https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1RB4y1c7db/
38. ClinicalTrials.gov. 2024. “China Gender-affirming Hormone Therapy Study (CGAHT), NCT05318755.” https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05318755
39. aboutTrans. 2026. “跨性别相关社会支持：北京大学第三医院.” https://aboutrans.info/docs/support
40. Trans Chinese Digital Archive. 2026. “北医三院易性症序列医疗团队.” https://digital.transchinese.org/社群及NGO文件/医院和医疗体系/北医三院易性症序列医疗团队_page/
41. Amnesty International. 2019. China: “I Need My Parents’ Consent to Be Myself”: Barriers to Gender-Affirming Treatments for Transgender People in China. https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/asa17/0269/2019/en/
42. UNDP. 2018. Legal Gender Recognition in China: A Legal and Policy Review. https://www.undp.org/china/publications/legal-gender-recognition-china-legal-and-policy-review
43. 潘柏林医生. 2022. “男跨女性别重置手术系列——生殖器篇.” Bilibili. https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1dG41177kL/
44. 潘柏林医生. 2023. “这些年，我们是怎么跟易性症诊断证明较劲的.” Bilibili. https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1Tc411s72C/
45. 人物／GQ相关访谈转载. 2022. “我希望自己的 title 是「跨性别友善医生」.” https://www.sohu.com/a/548085830_296504
46. China Development Brief. 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
47. Project Trans. 2026. “中国大陆跨性别相关法律法规变迁.” https://project-trans.org/china-legal/
48. GenderLibs. 2026. “从手术病历到社群热线：1983—2022年中国大陆跨性别公共史的六种记录制度.” https://www.genderlibs.org/zh-hans/docs/knowledge/transgender-public-history-documentary-regimes/
49. 跨性别华语编年录. 2026. “《他·她·TA：跨性别华语编年录》.” https://project-polymorph.github.io/trans-history/
50. Project Polymorph. 2026. 跨性别与多元性别网页档案馆. https://github.com/project-polymorph/content_archive