How to Verify “Firsts” in Mainland China’s Transgender Medical History: A Coordinate Guide to Surgery, Region, Public Identity, and Institutional Records

Abstract

Public histories of transgender medicine in mainland China repeatedly use superlatives: “the first case in China,” “China’s first transsexual,” “the first publicly identified female-to-male transsexual,” “the first case in Southwest China,” and the first national technical rule. These phrases resemble entries in one chronological ranking, while their historical objects occupy separate coordinates. A surgical procedure, a region, a hospital, a public identity, an identity-document change, a marriage registration, and a national regulatory system can each generate its own “first” claim. A 2026 Peking University Third Hospital memorial history describes Zhang Kesha’s operation on January 10, 1983 as China’s first male-to-female gender-reassignment surgery. A 2003 Yangtze Evening News report called Zhang the first person in China to receive sex-reassignment surgery. A 2008 retrospective on surgeon Zou Jinggui, by contrast, described a 1996 procedure as Southwest China’s first male-to-female surgery. Reports on Geng Zi in 2005 and 2006 supplied another qualifier: China’s first publicly identified female-to-male transsexual. A 2003 Chengdu story used still another category, describing a marriage as the country’s first involving a female-to-male transsexual after an identity-document change (PUH3 Plastic Surgery 2026; Yangtze Evening News 2003; Tianfu Morning Post 2008; Special Zone Youth Daily 2005; New Express 2006; China News Service 2003).

This guide organizes those materials through a first-claim coordinate method. Each claim receives seven fields: procedure_scope, geography, institution, publicity, administrative_effect, event_time, and record_role. Two additional clocks, record_time and revision_time, capture the distance among an event, its first public description, and later institutional rewriting. The central thesis is simple: a historical “first” works best as a qualified claim whose coordinates travel with the citation. More complete coordinates create stronger reproducibility and allow neighboring claims to coexist.

The method serves historians, editors, journalists, archives, and research agents. It turns a question such as “who came first?” into operational questions. Which procedure is being ranked? Does the scope cover the country, one region, or one institution? Was the person publicly identified at the time? Did identity documents change? Did marriage registration follow? Does the source sit close to the event or reflect on it decades later? When did national regulation convert established clinical practice into a named technical category? These fields place a confidential 1980s operation, regional medical expansion in the 1990s, public-person reporting in the 2000s, and national technical standards after 2009 on one evidence map while preserving the historical meaning of each.

Keywords: transgender history in China; medical history; gender reassignment; sex-reassignment surgery; historical firsts; Zhang Kesha; Geng Zi; source criticism; archives

1. Research question: what exactly does a “first” rank?

Historical writing often compresses a complicated archive into a superlative. A headline calling someone “China’s first transsexual” encourages readers to imagine the earliest transgender person in the country. A hospital memorial calling an operation “China’s first male-to-female gender-reassignment surgery” points instead to a specified surgical event. A profile describing “the first publicly identified female-to-male transsexual” ranks public identification. The sentence pattern stays similar while the comparison set changes.

Transgender history amplifies this problem because early medical records frequently sit inside privacy practices, approval procedures, and restricted institutional memory. Public reporting can arrive years or decades later. Autobiography, hospital history, physician recollection, newspapers, national regulation, and community archives each record the past for a separate purpose. Howard Chiang’s history of medicine and sex in modern China shows how medical categories, bodily technologies, and social language shift together across institutions. Trans-historiographical and archival work likewise shows how people become recoverable through changing names, classifications, and finding systems (Chiang 2018; Hickman 2021; Rawson 2013).

A “first” claim therefore begins with its unit of ranking. This guide uses seven coordinates:

Together these fields form a first_claim. A claim about Zhang Kesha can be normalized as procedure_scope=male-to-female genital reconstruction related surgery, geography=national claim for mainland China, institution=Peking University Third Hospital, publicity=confidential at the time, event_time=1983-01-10, and record_role=2026 institutional retrospective + 2003 public profile. Once the coordinates are visible, researchers can search for hospital charts, approval documents, and closer contemporaneous evidence while also placing a later “first publicly identified” claim beside it as a separate historical object.

2. Sources and method: three clocks for every superlative

The guide combines medical history, transgender-health research, archival studies, legal scholarship, and public institutional records. Its academic layer includes Chiang’s work on the history of sex and medicine in China, Rawson and Brügger on archival access and digital history, clinical standards by Coleman and Hembree and colleagues, Liu and colleagues’ national study of hormone and surgical demand in China, and recent Chinese transgender-health research on mental health, medication, and care access (Chiang 2012, 2018; Rawson 2013; Brügger 2018; Coleman et al. 2012, 2022; Hembree et al. 2009, 2017; Liu et al. 2020).

The public-history layer uses five source families. Hospital self-histories include PUH3’s 2012 sixtieth-anniversary materials, its 2026 memorial to Professor Wang Damei, and its 2018 record of a multidisciplinary team. Near-contemporaneous public reporting includes the 2003 Zhang Kesha book-event report, the 2003 Chengdu marriage-registration report, and reporting on Geng Zi’s public identity in 2005–2006. National technical regulation supplies the 2009, 2017, and 2022 rules. Community and specialist archives preserve older URLs and retrieval paths. Later clinical studies and national surveys show how the historical object expanded from surgery toward systems of care.

Every source also receives three clocks:

• event_time: when a surgery, document change, marriage, or public appearance occurred;
• record_time: when the present source first described that event publicly;
• revision_time: when an institution or archive rewrote, expanded, or republished the historical record.

These clocks turn apparent conflict into historical information. PUH3’s 2026 memorial gives January 3, 1983 as Zhang Kesha’s admission date and January 10 as the surgery date, using the phrase “China’s first male-to-female gender-reassignment surgery.” Earlier sixtieth-anniversary materials in the same institutional archive preserved a 1984 date for an early “sex-reassignment surgery.” The two versions first become separate record_time/revision_time entries. Researchers can then pursue evidence closer to the 1983 event and document how institutional memory itself changed (PUH3 Plastic Surgery 2012, 2026).

3. Zhang Kesha in 1983: a national surgical claim with a delayed public history

The 2026 PUH3 memorial to Professor Wang Damei supplies one of the most detailed public web accounts of the 1983 episode. It states that Zhang Kesha, then twenty, reached Wang’s clinic through contacts with Ruan Fangfu and Li Jianning. Following an approval process, Zhang entered the hospital on January 3 and underwent a twelve-hour operation on January 10. The institutional history labels it “China’s first male-to-female gender-reassignment surgery” and records strict confidentiality around the case at the time (PUH3 Plastic Surgery 2026).

Confidentiality shapes the archive. A clinically important event protected by medical privacy can live first in institutional records and participant memory, then enter public culture much later. In 2003, a Yangtze Evening News story covering the Nanjing signing event for Zhang’s autobiography Woman’s Dream—China’s First Transsexual described the January 1983 PUH3 operation as China’s first sex-reassignment operation. The report arrived two decades after the event, yet it sits close to Zhang’s own decision to make her history publicly identifiable. It therefore provides strong evidence for how the 1983 event was narrated in public culture by 2003, while the later hospital history independently anchors the medical institution and surgical chronology (Yangtze Evening News 2003).

The two layers answer separate questions. Clinical history asks when the procedure happened, which institution and clinicians performed it, and how the operation was defined. Public history asks when the experience became searchable and publicly attributable, when Zhang spoke in her own name, and which superlatives the media attached to her story. Keeping both layers preserves a richer chronology.

Terminology also moves across the same chronology. The 2009 national rule used 变性手术技术, commonly translated as sex-reassignment or transition surgery in its period context. The 2017 and 2022 rules use 性别重置技术, gender-reassignment technology. When a 2026 hospital history applies the later phrase to a 1983 event, contemporary institutional language describes an earlier clinical practice. Historical metadata can preserve an event_term from period sources alongside a current_descriptor used for present retrieval. Chiang’s work on changing medical classification in modern China offers a strong framework for reading these lexical layers as part of institutional history (Chiang 2018).

4. Regional “firsts”: the 1990s Huaxi story turns ranking into a geography of medical capacity

A national claim forms only one value on the geographic coordinate. A 2008 retrospective on Zou Jinggui, former director of a medical cosmetology center at West China Hospital, describes a 1996 operation as “Southwest China’s first male-to-female surgery.” The report looks back to the center’s 1995 contact with a patient seeking care and links the procedure to Zou’s later series of more than thirty related operations (Tianfu Morning Post 2008).

The historical value sits in the qualifier “Southwest China.” It defines a regional and institutional development line, allowing the 1996 record to coexist with the 1983 Beijing national claim. Stripping the geographic qualifier would make the reports appear competitive. Recording geography and institution instead turns one record into an early national claim centered on Beijing and the other into evidence for the arrival of this surgical capacity in Southwest China.

Regional firsts can also reveal medical diffusion. Complex reconstructive surgery initially concentrated in a small group of large hospitals, then spread through specialist training, reconstructive capacity, ethics procedures, and regional centers. The 2009 national rule later formalized institution-level conditions including department history, beds, an ethics committee, physician experience, and reconstructive capability. National regulation thus began to define which institutions could offer the technique through a common framework (Ministry of Health 2009).

This distinction also makes media framing easier to interpret. Local reporting often highlights regional breakthroughs; profiles foreground personal biography; hospital histories foreground departmental lineage. Each source carries a preferred unit of narration. The coordinate method treats those preferences as evidence for reconstructing institutional diffusion.

5. Female-to-male histories: surgery, public identity, identity cards, and marriage form four timelines

Early-2000s reporting on female-to-male transition offers the clearest demonstration of several “firsts” operating simultaneously. A 2003 China News Service report described a Chengdu marriage involving a person who had undergone surgery and received an identity card with a male sex marker. Its headline framed the event as the country’s first marriage involving a female-to-male transsexual. The ranked object here is marriage registration, and the body of the report links surgery, identity-document change, and marriage as an administrative sequence (China News Service 2003).

Reporting on Geng Zi in 2005 used a separate category: “China’s first publicly identified female-to-male transsexual.” A 2006 New Express report described multiple surgical stages across Xiamen and Guangzhou beginning in March 2005, receipt of a male identity card in February 2006, and a public appearance in March. A 2013 People’s Daily Online follow-up preserved the phrase “the first willing to publicly identify” and reviewed his contact with media in 2004, the 2005 procedures, and later life (Special Zone Youth Daily 2005; New Express 2006; People’s Daily Online 2013).

Placed together, these sources produce four parallel timelines:

A reliable history can therefore contain both the Geng Zi public-identity claim and a 2003 marriage involving another female-to-male person. The former is keyed to publicity; the latter is keyed to administrative_effect=marriage. This also clarifies the difference between public-person history and clinical history. People who choose privacy may appear in clinical records under protected identities, while people who participate in interviews generate a denser public-media archive.

UNDP’s policy review of legal gender recognition in China further documents the multi-step relation among medical evidence, public-security administration, and downstream documents. Population studies likewise show that surgery, hormone care, psychological support, and document changes occupy separate places in transgender people’s needs and trajectories (UNDP 2018; Liu et al. 2020; Wang et al. 2023). Historical databases therefore benefit from a separate date for each institutional action and a superlative attached to one action at a time.

6. Public-figure “firsts”: visibility coordinates and clinical coordinates serve separate histories

Jin Xing’s public biography illustrates another recurring superlative. International reporting and online profiles regularly present her as an early highly visible transgender celebrity in China, while treating her 1995 gender-affirming surgery as a major biographical point. Her historical significance also comes from choreography, dance institutions, television, celebrity culture, and sustained public visibility. GenderLibs’s earlier study of her 2011–2015 television history decomposed that visibility into roles including judge, mentor, host, and the presenter of a program bearing her own name.

When a “first” describes a public figure, the ranking unit approaches public_role or celebrity_visibility. Zhang Kesha’s 1983 claim belongs to clinical history; a Jin Xing public-figure claim belongs to media and cultural history. Each gains meaning through its own coordinate. A dataset can preserve labels such as earliest surgical claim, earliest publicly identified claim, highly visible celebrity, or early named television-host role while linking the people across the same broader history.

Visibility itself has levels. A one-time interview, sustained activity under a public name, entry into mass entertainment, professional judging, and ownership of a named talk-show role each represent a distinct media position. Scholarship on queer media and public culture in China provides the wider context: public identity is produced through media institutions, commercial platforms, community networks, and policy environments (Engebretsen, Schroeder & Bao 2015; Liu 2023). A public-figure “first” therefore works best when the medium, date range, and role travel with the claim, leaving the surgery coordinate to medical history.

7. 2009, 2017, 2022: national rules move the chronology into regulatory time

Clinical surgery was already occurring in the 1980s and 1990s. A clear national regulatory node appears in 2009, when the Ministry of Health issued the trial Technical Management Standard for Sex-Reassignment Surgery. The rule organized institution qualifications, ethics review, physician experience, surgical-candidate conditions, informed consent, and required documents into a national technical framework. Contemporary government-linked reporting described these as minimum standards for hospitals and clinicians providing the procedure (Ministry of Health 2009; China National Radio/Beijing Morning Post 2009).

In 2017, the National Health and Family Planning Commission issued fifteen standards for “restricted clinical application” technologies. The package includes the Technical Management Standard for Gender Reassignment (2017 edition) and explicitly supersedes the 2009 trial rule. The change combines a lexical and regulatory revision: sex-reassignment surgery technology → gender-reassignment technology and 2009 trial standard → 2017 restricted-clinical-application standard (NHFPC 2017).

In 2022, the National Health Commission issued another national restricted-technology framework. Its G05 section is the Clinical Application Management Standard for Gender Reassignment Technology (2022 edition), which continues to organize surgical care through institutional departments, ethics review, technical capacity, and quality-control measures (NHC 2022).

These three documents add regulatory_stage to the coordinate system. The date of a surgery, the date a hospital forms a team, and the date a national standard takes effect belong to three institutional timelines. The 2009 rule marks a national governance node; the 1983 procedure marks an early clinical event; the 2018 PUH3 team page marks organization of multidisciplinary care. Joined in sequence, they reveal a longer development: individual clinical event → regional diffusion → national standard → multidisciplinary service → quality management.

International clinical standards provide additional period context. WPATH’s SOC7 and SOC8, the 2009 and 2017 Endocrine Society guidelines, and ICD-11 revisions document broader changes in diagnostic language, assessment, and care goals (Coleman et al. 2012, 2022; Hembree et al. 2009, 2017; Reed et al. 2019). Chinese historical sources can remain legible in their own period vocabulary while present-day comparison links those vocabularies across time.

8. Source weight: contemporaneous records, institutional retrospectives, and archival copies answer separate questions

Source count forms only the first layer of verification. Source role determines evidentiary reach. A 2026 hospital memorial can preserve departmental lineage, clinician names, admission and surgery dates, and memories of approval. An original 1983 chart or approval document, once made publicly available under appropriate archival conditions, would sit closer to the event. A 2003 profile can establish when Zhang publicly narrated her experience. A 2008 physician obituary can establish how a regional medical community remembered 1990s surgical development. All contribute evidence through separate functions.

This guide uses four source layers:

Digital-history scholarship adds another layer because web sources possess captures, migrations, and revisions. Brügger treats web history as work with versioned digital objects, while Rawson shows how transgender archival description and access logic shape future retrieval (Brügger 2018; Rawson 2013). Specialist projects such as the Transgender Chinese Digital Archive and Project Trans can preserve older policy, news, and hospital materials most effectively when they retain original_url, publisher, event_date, archived_at, and a source-role field. The archival copy then provides preservation while the original publisher retains source identity.

Superlatives also drift through repetition. A later article can copy an earlier headline while dropping one qualifier. “First in Southwest China” can shrink to “first”; “first publicly identified” can shrink to “first transsexual.” Returning to the earliest locatable page and transcribing the full qualifier sharply improves historical precision.

9. Counterevidence and boundaries: confidentiality, anonymity, multi-stage surgery, and media superlatives

A strong guide actively searches for materials that change the comparison set. Four counterevidence families deserve routine attention.

The first is confidential or anonymous clinical evidence. PUH3’s 2026 retrospective states that the 1983 operation was kept confidential at the time. Early clinical practice may therefore include protected charts, internal approval records, and anonymous cases that have little public-web representation. Current public evidence supports a presently verifiable claim, while later archival opening can refine the chronology.

The second is multi-stage surgery. Reporting on Geng Zi describes several procedures across Xiamen and Guangzhou over a period of months. Such histories benefit from separate first_stage_date, final_stage_date, legal_document_date, and public_appearance_date fields. A single date compresses a long clinical process.

The third is geographic qualification. The Huaxi material explicitly says “first in Southwest China.” Other cities, military hospitals, specialist institutions, and surgical teams can preserve their own institutional firsts. A national ranking requires national candidate coverage; a regional ranking needs evidence for its stated geography.

The fourth is media superlative language. Profiles favor compact labels such as “first person,” “first case,” or “first transsexual.” Such phrasing first proves how a media outlet framed a person. A historical synthesis gains strength through hospital records, regulation, additional contemporaneous reporting, and participant sources. Zhang Kesha, Geng Zi, the Chengdu marriage case, and the Zou Jinggui team belong in the same guide precisely because the four clusters illustrate four ranking objects: surgery, public identification, marriage registration, and region.

Clinical research adds a further boundary. National studies show care needs spanning hormones, surgery, mental-health support, self-medication, and geographically uneven access. Recent clinical cohorts refine those questions through treatment milestones, medication patterns, and regional disparities (Liu et al. 2020; Yang et al. 2024; Hou et al. 2026; Cai et al. 2026; He et al. 2026). Transgender medical history has consequently expanded from a history of singular operations toward a history of service systems, pharmaceutical pathways, psychological care, documents, and longitudinal treatment. Historical firsts remain useful entry points inside that larger map.

10. Practical guide: seven verification questions and a first-claim decomposition matrix

Any new “China’s first” claim can be processed through seven questions.

1. What is the object? Specify the procedure, clinic, team, document, marriage, public appearance, or media role.
2. What is the scope? Record country, region, city, hospital, department, or platform.
3. Who certifies it? Separate participant, hospital, government, journalist, scholarly author, and later archive.
4. When did the event happen? Record exact dates where available and separate stages.
5. When was the record created? Give retrospective sources a distinct record_time.
6. What was the level of publicity? Distinguish protected chart, pseudonymous reporting, named interview, and deliberate publication.
7. What institutional effect followed? Record surgery, document update, marriage registration, hospital authorization, and national regulation separately.

The answers fit into a first-claim decomposition matrix:

The matrix allows several “firsts” to remain valid while making each one auditable. Editorial prose can carry the full qualification: “PUH3’s 2026 institutional history records Zhang Kesha’s January 10, 1983 operation as China’s first male-to-female gender-reassignment surgery”; “reporting from 2005–2006 described Geng Zi as China’s first publicly identified female-to-male transsexual”; “a 2008 retrospective on a Huaxi surgeon described a 1996 operation as Southwest China’s first male-to-female surgery.” Each sentence gives readers source, date, scope, and claim together.

For databases and agents, a compact schema works well:

{claim_text, procedure_scope, geography, institution, publicity, administrative_effect, event_time, record_time, revision_time, source_role, source_url, confidence}

A retrieval system can then answer precise questions such as which institutional source calls the 1983 operation a national first, which public-person record supplies the earliest identifiable female-to-male claim in the present corpus, and how many years separate the 2009 national standard from the 1983 surgical event. “First” becomes a traceable evidence relation rather than a free-floating answer string.

Conclusion: replace a leaderboard with a coordinate map

Historical “firsts” in mainland China’s transgender medical history take several valid forms. Zhang Kesha’s 1983 PUH3 operation anchors an early national clinical claim. Huaxi materials preserve a regional diffusion node in 1996. The 2003 Chengdu report records an administrative sequence connecting surgery, identity-card update, and marriage. Geng Zi’s 2005–2006 archive records publicity as its defining coordinate. National documents from 2009, 2017, and 2022 move the history into technical governance and quality management.

The first-claim coordinate method writes those claims as {object × geography × institution × publicity × administrative effect × event time × source role}. Adding record_time and revision_time makes confidential surgery, participant narration, regional medical history, national regulation, and digital archives comparable in one framework. A robust “first” appears as a complete auditable sentence: who, within which scope, did what, at what time, and which source recorded the claim at which stage.

This method also opens a wider reading of transgender history. Medical technology, public visibility, legal identity, marriage, hospital capacity, and national regulation possess separate timelines. Their intersections form an institutional coordinate map. A person’s embodied experience connects to a hospital record; hospital records connect to regional diffusion; public identity connects to media systems; documents connect to marriage administration; national rules recode established practice as regulated technology. A historical “first” becomes an index into these institutional relations and a practical starting point for deeper source reconstruction.

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. Rawson, K. J. 2013. “Accessing Transgender // Desiring Queer(er?) Archival Logics.” Archivaria 68. https://archivaria.ca/index.php/archivaria/article/view/13234
5. Brügger, Niels. 2018. The Archived Web: Doing History in the Digital Age. MIT Press. https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262537879/the-archived-web/
6. 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/
7. 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/
8. 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
9. 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
10. 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
11. 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
12. 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
13. 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
14. 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/
15. 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
16. 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
17. 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/
18. 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
19. 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/
20. 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
21. 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/
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, archival, and contemporaneous public sources

26. 北医三院成形外科. 2012. “北医三院整形外科60年画册附录.” https://www.sar.com.cn/xinwen/syyydt/4132.html
27. 北医三院成形外科. 2026. “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
28. 卫生部办公厅. 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
29. 国家卫生计生委办公厅. 2017. “关于印发造血干细胞移植技术管理规范（2017年版）等15个‘限制临床应用’医疗技术管理规范和质量控制指标的通知.” https://www.nhc.gov.cn/bgt/2016deqe/201707/cbf4a558b2b24354887f9825efbe3fb5/files/1745206490963_91523.pdf
30. 国家卫生健康委办公厅. 2022. “G05 性别重置技术临床应用管理规范（2022年版）.” https://www.nhc.gov.cn/yzygj/c100068/202204/2655831f6f444b00b3e50604e67531f5/files/1733999790407_69971.pdf
31. 扬子晚报. 2003. “‘变性第一人’来宁诉说‘女人梦’.” https://ent.sina.com.cn/2003-09-28/1325208135.html
32. 天府早报. 2008. “西南‘变性手术之父’离世 曾成功手术32例.” https://news.sohu.com/20080724/n258346201.shtml
33. 特区青年报. 2005. “中国首例公开身份‘女变男’易性者.” https://news.sina.cn/sa/2005-12-01/detail-ikknscsi8394801.d.html
34. 新快报. 2006. “国内首例‘女变男’厦门亮相.” https://news.sina.com.cn/c/2006-03-31/09528579541s.shtml
35. 人民网. 2013. “中国首例公开身份‘女变男’易性者：做男人不后悔.” https://www.people.com.cn/24hour/n/2013/0114/c25408-20192509.html
36. 中国新闻网. 2003. “‘她’变‘他’，娶了她：全国首例女变男变性人成婚.” https://www.chinanews.com.cn/n/2003-12-31/26/386919.html
37. 中国广播网／北京晨报. 2009. “卫生部：实施变性手术者须未婚且年满20岁.” https://news.sohu.com/20091122/n268373744.shtml
38. 健康界. 2017. “国家卫计委发布15项限制临床应用医疗技术（2017版）.” https://www.cn-healthcare.com/article/20170220/content-489744.html
39. 北医三院成形外科. 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
40. 北医三院成形外科. 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
41. 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/
42. 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/
43. 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
44. Project Trans. 2026. “中国大陆跨性别相关法律法规变迁.” https://project-trans.org/china-legal/
45. 跨与多元性别档案. 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/
46. ClinicalTrials.gov. 2024. “China Gender-affirming Hormone Therapy Study (CGAHT), NCT05318755.” https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05318755
47. aboutTrans. 2026. “跨性别相关社会支持：北京大学第三医院.” https://aboutrans.info/docs/support
48. 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/
49. 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/
50. 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