Abstract

Between 2009 and 2026, research on the mental health of transgender and gender-diverse people in mainland China developed into an increasingly dense evidence system. Earlier studies often recruited transgender women through urban community, HIV-public-health, or specialty-care networks and centered anxiety, depression, social support, and discrimination. The 2017 Chinese Transgender Population General Survey created a large cross-regional transgender-specific data source. Later studies brought suicidality, parental psychological abuse, school environments, gender minority stress, gender-identity conversion practices, health-care access, and mental-health service utilization into the same research field. From 2020 onward, school-based samples, large young-adult samples, culturally adapted measures, network analysis, and systematic reviews substantially expanded the field’s capacity for comparison and mechanism testing (Yang et al. 2016; Chen et al. 2019; Peng et al. 2019; Wang et al. 2020; Lin et al. 2021; Sun et al. 2023; Wang et al. 2023; Dong et al. 2026).

This article treats that development as a history of mental-health evidence. Its central argument is that the research question widened from “how many people report a symptom?” to “which institutional and relational conditions shape mental health, and which supports and service interfaces alter the distribution of risk?” That expansion increased explanatory power while raising the burden of careful comparison. National online surveys, urban convenience samples, school samples, youth samples, and occupation-specific samples have separate denominators. Depression screens, anxiety scales, suicide-risk measures, traumatic-stress symptoms, sleep, self-esteem, and service utilization are also distinct outcome domains.

The article therefore proposes two tools. A mental-health evidence matrix records population, recruitment_frame, geography, gender_measure, outcome_measure, exposure, protective_factor, time_window, denominator, and study_design for each source. A mechanism-chain ledger links structural stigma, family relations, school environments, economic and medical conditions, proximal psychological processes, supportive resources, mental-health outcomes, and help-seeking while preserving the evidentiary level of each link. Together they show the major historical shift in mainland Chinese transgender mental-health research: from counting outcomes toward measuring contextualized mechanisms.

Keywords: transgender; mainland China; mental health; minority stress; depression; anxiety; suicidality; social support; mental-health services; evidence history

1. Research question: how mental health became a map of relationships

Transgender mental health often enters public discussion through striking prevalence figures: depression, anxiety, self-harm, suicidal ideation, sleep problems, or traumatic-stress symptoms. Those figures are useful for public health, but their meaning depends on how they were produced. An anxiety estimate from a 2016 sample of transgender women in Shenyang, lifetime suicidal ideation in a 2019 analysis of a national online transgender sample, mental-health measures among gender-diverse students from eighteen secondary schools in Suzhou, psychiatric symptoms in a 2023 sample of nearly ninety thousand young adults, and outcomes associated with gender-identity conversion practices in a national transgender health survey each come from a different recruitment frame and research design (Yang et al. 2016; Chen et al. 2019; Wang et al. 2020; Sun et al. 2023; Wang et al. 2023).

The question here is: how did research on transgender mental health in mainland China develop from descriptions of symptom rates into an evidence system capable of measuring social pressure, relational environments, supportive resources, medical interfaces, and help-seeking?

At least four expansions of research capacity are visible. First, urban community and public-health networks brought people who had rarely appeared in dedicated studies into quantitative research. Second, large transgender-specific surveys created shared cross-regional datasets. Third, school and young-adult samples introduced cisgender comparison groups, common institutional settings, and much larger denominators. Fourth, minority-stress measures, symptom-network analysis, and service-utilization studies began separating external events, proximal processes, protective factors, and institutional interfaces (Lin et al. 2021; Spielmann et al. 2022; Zheng et al. 2025; Dong et al. 2026).

This expansion changes the unit of historical analysis. Mental-health history becomes a history of evidence infrastructure: who enters a study, through which network, under which gender measure, with which definition of stress or support, through which service interface, and with which scale. These choices determine what becomes visible as “transgender mental health.”

2. Materials and method: the evidence matrix and mechanism-chain ledger

The article uses four bodies of material. The first consists of peer-reviewed studies focused on transgender and gender-diverse populations, including national online surveys, urban convenience samples, adolescent research, school samples, family-stress research, gender-minority-stress measurement, and mental-health service utilization. These studies supply the main quantitative and mechanism evidence (Chen et al. 2019; Peng et al. 2019; Wang et al. 2020; Wang et al. 2021; Chang et al. 2019; She et al. 2022; Li et al. 2024).

The second body consists of systematic reviews and measurement studies. Lin and colleagues searched Chinese- and English-language literature from 1990 through August 2021 and included two qualitative and twenty-eight quantitative studies, providing a retrospective map of the earlier field. Zhu and colleagues later reviewed mental-health conditions and health-care needs among transgender and gender-diverse youth in China. Zheng and colleagues and Dong and colleagues directly tested how gender-minority-stress measures perform in Chinese-language and mainland Chinese settings (Lin et al. 2021; Zheng et al. 2025; Zhu et al. 2026; Dong et al. 2026).

The third body contains policy, institutional, and professional sources: China’s Mental Health Law, national medical-technology rules governing gender reassignment, the WHO’s ICD-11 explanation of gender incongruence, UNDP transgender-health materials, WPATH standards, and the 2017 Chinese transgender population survey. These sources locate psychological services, diagnostic processes, medical access, consent, and rights within an institutional environment (Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress 2018; Ministry of Health 2009; National Health Commission 2022; WHO 2022; UNDP China 2018).

The fourth body consists of community, educational, and public-interest archives. They preserve the public contexts behind research variables such as family pressure, school violence, organizational space, social support, and service entry points (Beijing LGBT Center and Peking University Department of Sociology 2017; Common Language Archive 2021; Ministry of Education 2021; Scholars at Risk 2021).

The mental-health evidence matrix uses ten fields:

  1. population: transgender women, transgender men, nonbinary people, gender-diverse youth, or mixed samples;
  2. recruitment_frame: community network, medical institution, school, online platform, public-health program, or national survey;
  3. geography: one city, multiple cities, one province, or national coverage;
  4. gender_measure: self-identification, a two-step sex-at-birth/current-gender measure, researcher-defined category, or a combined rule;
  5. outcome_measure: depression, anxiety, traumatic stress, sleep, self-harm, suicide risk, self-esteem, psychological well-being, or service utilization;
  6. exposure: discrimination, rejection, bullying, family pressure, conversion practices, medical barriers, and related conditions;
  7. protective_factor: social support, environmental support, resilience, community connectedness, or affirming care;
  8. time_window: current, past month, past year, lifetime, or retrospective stage;
  9. denominator: the actual study population behind a reported figure;
  10. study_design: cross-sectional, qualitative, network analysis, measurement validation, review, or another design.

The mechanism-chain ledger records which levels a claim traverses: structural_context → interpersonal_exposure → proximal_process → protective_resource → mental_health_outcome → help_seeking. Each arrow is tied to a specific research design. Cross-sectional associations describe co-occurrence and statistical relationships; longitudinal direction and intervention effects require designs suited to those questions.

An early quantitative strand of mainland Chinese transgender mental-health research was closely connected to studies of transgender women recruited through urban community and HIV-public-health networks. A 2016 Journal of Affective Disorders study recruited 209 transgender women in Shenyang, used a standardized anxiety scale, and measured friend discrimination, social support, partnership, and health-service variables. Its important contribution was relational: friend discrimination was associated with more anxiety, while social support was associated with less anxiety (Yang et al. 2016).

This type of urban study established several interfaces that later minority-stress research developed further. Participants entered research through existing community and public-health channels; psychological outcomes were measured alongside discrimination, disclosure, support, and service variables; and transgender identity appeared as a dedicated population category rather than only as a subordinate variable inside a broader behavioral group. Studies in Shenyang and Guangzhou later linked depression, self-esteem, defeat, entrapment, social support, and service utilization among transgender women and transgender women sex workers (Chang et al. 2019; She et al. 2022).

The sampling boundary remains central to interpretation. A one- or two-city convenience sample can examine a relational mechanism closely, while its population coverage remains shaped by the recruitment network. Research among transgender women sex workers is especially valuable for understanding occupational context, layered stigma, and help-seeking barriers; its findings belong to that population and social network. In the evidence matrix, these studies form a mechanism-variable formation stage: the field begins to explain the relational structure around symptoms while retaining a clearly bounded denominator.

4. 2017–2019: national transgender data create a shared denominator

The 2017 Chinese Transgender Population General Survey Report became a major data foundation for later work. Centered on transgender and gender-nonconforming respondents, it covered family, education, employment, health care, and public life and offered later scholars a large cross-regional sample and a broader set of variables (Beijing LGBT Center and Peking University Department of Sociology 2017; China Development Brief 2017).

Chen and colleagues used a national sample to study suicidal ideation and suicide attempts among more than 1,300 participants. Their models included parental conflict, depression, self-harm, service-seeking, and other variables. The study therefore moved beyond a single prevalence estimate: psychological outcomes appeared alongside family relationships, medical needs, and prior mental-health conditions (Chen et al. 2019).

Research published in the same period brought home and school violence into the adolescent evidence base. Peng and colleagues studied 385 transgender and gender-nonbinary adolescents and separately measured parental abuse and neglect, abuse or bullying from classmates and teachers, depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation. The historical importance of the study lies in joining two central everyday institutions—family and school—inside one adolescent mental-health framework (Peng et al. 2019).

By the end of this period, two complementary pathways were visible. One widened population coverage through national network recruitment. The other increased mechanism resolution by separating family violence, school bullying, and social support into measured exposures. In the evidence matrix, institutional_context now gains operational meaning: family, school, health care, and community networks become environments that can be compared rather than background narrative alone.

5. 2020–2021: school sampling, network analysis, and systematic review increase resolution

A 2020 Suzhou study contributed a different denominator. Wang and colleagues recruited more than 12,000 students from eighteen secondary schools and measured sex assigned at birth, current gender identity, depression, anxiety, sleep, bullying, self-harm, and suicide-related outcomes. A shared school sampling frame allowed comparisons between cisgender and gender-diverse students within common institutional environments (Wang et al. 2020).

The school sample altered what “large-scale evidence” could mean. National online transgender samples emphasize geographic coverage and transgender-specific variables; school-based samples emphasize a shared institution and group comparison. Their knowledge functions are complementary. The first provides greater detail about experiences within transgender populations, while the second can reveal disparities inside a common educational setting. Placing their prevalence figures in one undifferentiated trend would erase those design differences; the evidence matrix instead records what each design newly makes answerable.

In 2021, Wang and colleagues applied symptom-network analysis to more than 1,200 transgender and gender-queer young people from the national survey. The analysis joined parental psychological abuse, depression, anxiety, self-harm and suicide risk and compared transgender men, transgender women, and gender-queer subgroups. Network structure itself became the object of study, and low self-esteem entered the mechanism chain (Wang et al. 2021).

Lin and colleagues’ systematic review, also published in 2021, then reorganized dispersed studies into a field-level picture. Its bilingual search found repeated reports of depression, anxiety, substance-use problems, stress-related problems, and disparities in psychological well-being, while also identifying weaknesses in representativeness, study design, and service research (Lin et al. 2021). The review supplied a new historical lens: scholarship began documenting the biases and missing capacities of its own evidence infrastructure.

6. From “risk factors” to minority stress: separating external events, proximal processes, and resources

The minority-stress framework introduced a more differentiated architecture. External discrimination, rejection, and victimization can be separated from proximal processes such as internalized stigma, negative expectations, and concealment. Social support, community connectedness, resilience, and identity affirmation can be measured as potential resources. Mainland Chinese research gradually moved from asking whether discrimination occurred toward testing these more specific constructs.

Zhang, Lo, and Au examined gender-related discrimination, rejection, victimization, depression, and the possible buffering role of resilience. Spielmann and colleagues used the 2017 national transgender survey to study school discrimination, environmental support, mental health, and self-harm and found that perceived environmental support was associated with better mental health (Zhang et al. 2021; Spielmann et al. 2022).

Zheng and colleagues later validated a Chinese version of the Gender Minority Stress and Resilience Measure. Their sample included 282 participants across twenty-nine provinces and 121 cities and separated discrimination, rejection, victimization, nonaffirmation, internalized transphobia, negative expectations, nondisclosure, community connectedness, and pride. Multiple stress dimensions correlated with mental-health problems, while some resilience dimensions showed a pattern that differed from common findings in Western samples (Zheng et al. 2025).

Dong and colleagues advanced this measurement work through community-engaged cultural adaptation. Cognitive interviews and feedback from community and academic experts prompted changes to items whose assumptions did not translate cleanly into Chinese social and linguistic contexts. Spoken Mandarin’s homophony of third-person pronouns, for example, complicates the direct transfer of English-language pronoun experiences; religiously framed wording also required adaptation. The resulting measure showed useful validity evidence in a sample of transgender women, transfeminine people, and other gender-diverse people assigned male at birth (Dong et al. 2026).

This body of research marks a measurement-localization stage. The central task becomes examining how a construct works inside Chinese language, relationships, and institutions. Measurement papers themselves become historical cultural sources: removed, revised, or added items record the precise interfaces at which cross-cultural measurement required change.

7. Gender-identity conversion practices: measuring institutional exposure directly

The 2023 national transgender health survey treated experiences of gender-identity conversion practices as a distinct exposure. Wang and colleagues analyzed more than 7,500 transgender, nonbinary, and gender-diverse respondents and distinguished professional conversion efforts from efforts by family members or other nonprofessionals. They compared these experiences with depression, anxiety, traumatic-stress symptoms, suicide-related outcomes, nonsuicidal self-injury, and substance-use outcomes and reported associations between conversion-practice exposure and multiple adverse mental-health measures, with particularly important patterns among adolescents (Wang et al. 2023).

This study expands earlier measures of family pressure and discrimination. Family efforts to force gender change, professional conversion efforts, social gender norms, and psychological outcomes appear inside one transgender-specific research framework. Human Rights Watch’s 2017 report on conversion therapy in China primarily documented sexual-orientation change practices; its interviews also included two people who later identified as transgender women, while the report explicitly states that the treatment target in those cases had been presumed homosexuality at the time. In a transgender mental-health history, that report is therefore best used to document the institutional background of coercive mental-health practices and consent, while transgender-specific risk estimates come from later dedicated research (Human Rights Watch 2017; Wang et al. 2023).

China’s Mental Health Law adds another institutional coordinate. It sets rights and procedures around psychiatric diagnosis, treatment, hospitalization, privacy, and nonvoluntary care. National medical-technology rules governing gender-reassignment surgery have also historically placed psychiatric or psychological assessment inside routes to surgical care (Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress 2018; Ministry of Health 2009; National Health Commission 2022). Psychological services can therefore occupy several positions: support, evaluation, referral, medical gatekeeping, or a combination. The mechanism-chain ledger records the institutional position of a service and how participants experience it.

8. Service utilization: can people with needs reach help?

Once psychological outcomes became well documented, another research question followed: whether people who might benefit from services can actually reach them. She and colleagues studied transgender women sex workers in Shenyang who screened at risk for mental-health problems or perceived a need for mental-health services. The study found limited past-year use of professional services and identified confidentiality concerns, discrimination, cost, nondisclosure, and social support as relevant to service use or behavioral intention (She et al. 2022).

This research converts a “mental-health disparity” into a service-system problem. Depression or anxiety symptoms do not automatically produce an accessible affirming service pathway. Finding a professional, assessing safety, paying for care, explaining gender experience, deciding how much to disclose, interpreting prior medical encounters, and maintaining continuity are separate steps. UNDP’s transgender-health work in China likewise frames knowledge gaps, professional capacity, and comprehensive care as system-level issues (UNDP China 2018).

Xie and colleagues’ Lancet comment foregrounded the necessity of social support, while subsequent studies of gender-affirming hormone demand and access show that geography, economy, education, and formal service supply shape health pathways (Xie et al. 2021; Liu et al. 2020). The evidence matrix therefore records help_seeking and service_access beyond symptom outcomes. They may follow psychological distress, and they may also shape longer-term trajectories.

9. 2023–2026: large young-adult samples and culturally adapted measures form new infrastructure

In 2023, Sun and colleagues analyzed a sample of more than 89,000 young adults in China, including more than 2,300 transgender and gender-nonconforming participants. The study measured depression, anxiety, traumatic stress, nonsuicidal self-injury, suicide risk, peer bullying, and loneliness. Its shared large-sample design enabled comparisons among cisgender heterosexual, cisgender sexual-minority, and TGNC participants while keeping gender identity and sexual orientation as distinct analytical dimensions (Sun et al. 2023).

Chen and colleagues validated the Utrecht Gender Dysphoria Scale—Gender Spectrum in a Chinese population and examined associations between gender-dysphoria severity and mental health, self-harm, and suicidality. Li and colleagues then studied a subset of more than 2,300 transgender, nonbinary, and gender-diverse university students and examined associations of gender-dysphoria severity with anxiety, depression, suicidal ideation, and nonsuicidal self-injury (Chen et al. 2023; Li et al. 2024). These studies show that gender-related internal experience itself requires careful measurement and can be analyzed alongside external discrimination, family relationships, and service conditions.

A 2024 study of transgender women in Shenyang and Kunming placed perceived stress, thwarted belongingness, perceived burdensomeness, social exclusion, and suicidal ideation within a mediation model, demonstrating further decomposition of interpersonal mechanisms (Hu et al. 2024). Dong and colleagues’ measure adaptation, published in its 2026 journal issue, and Zhu and colleagues’ review of transgender and gender-diverse youth in China extend the evidence base into culturally specific measurement and field-level synthesis (Dong et al. 2026; Zhu et al. 2026).

By 2026, the research infrastructure includes national transgender surveys, school samples, very large young-adult samples, city and occupation-specific samples, family and school mechanism studies, culturally adapted instruments, network analyses, service-utilization research, and systematic reviews. As evidence types multiply, source boundaries matter more. “Transgender,” “TGNC,” “TGD,” and “gender-diverse youth” may be constructed through different screening questions and inclusion rules. Historical synthesis should preserve each study’s original categories and explicitly document any cross-study mapping.

10. How to read prevalence: denominator, time window, and measure are part of the number

The most shareable element of mental-health research is a percentage. The most important element to preserve with it is the denominator. Chen and colleagues’ lifetime suicidal-ideation estimate belongs to a national online transgender sample; Wang and colleagues’ school results belong to students in eighteen Suzhou secondary schools; Chang and colleagues’ depression findings belong to transgender women sex workers in Shenyang and Guangzhou; Sun and colleagues’ psychiatric-symptom distributions belong to a very large young-adult sample (Chen et al. 2019; Chang et al. 2019; Wang et al. 2020; Sun et al. 2023).

Time windows matter as well. “Lifetime,” “past year,” “past month,” and “current symptoms” capture cumulative experience and recent state differently. Scale thresholds also shape what counts as a positive screen. Depression questionnaires, anxiety scales, trauma screens, suicide-risk indices, and single self-report items have distinct structures. The evidence matrix therefore binds every prevalence figure to outcome_measure + time_window + denominator.

Study design determines the level of inference. Cross-sectional designs identify statistical associations in a given period. Mediation and network models can test theoretically specified structures and pathways. Validation studies examine how a construct is measured in a given population and language. Reviews reveal where a field repeatedly samples or measures the same groups. Claims about long-term direction, intervention effects, and causal ordering call for longitudinal, natural-experiment, or intervention designs.

Careful design reading strengthens rather than weakens the public synthesis. Across multiple designs, similar directions recur: transgender and gender-diverse participants report substantial mental-health burdens; family abuse, school bullying, discrimination, rejection, social exclusion, and gender-identity conversion practices are associated with poorer outcomes; and social support, environmental support, resilience, affirming relationships, and safer service access appear as important resources (Lin et al. 2021; Zhang et al. 2021; Spielmann et al. 2022; Wang et al. 2023; Zheng et al. 2025). The matrix keeps that synthesis auditable.

11. Counterevidence and research gaps: where the evidence remains thin

First, recruitment still depends heavily on online communities, urban networks, schools, or medical entry points. Rural and remote populations, people with limited community contact, youth outside school, older transgender adults, people with lower digital access, and some nonbinary populations remain less densely represented. National online surveys widened geography, while probability samples and longitudinal cohorts remain important future infrastructure (Lin et al. 2021; Zhu et al. 2026).

Second, early public-health research was weighted toward transgender women. Dedicated research on transgender men and nonbinary people has grown later. Recent work on hormone access, young-adult mental health, and gender-minority stress is increasing population coverage, but age, region, class, and gender subgroup structures remain uneven (Liu et al. 2020; Li et al. 2024; Dong et al. 2026).

Third, protective-factor measurement is less mature than risk-factor measurement. Social support, school environmental support, resilience, and community connectedness now appear in multiple studies, yet some resilience constructs behave differently in Chinese samples than in research from Western settings. Zheng and colleagues, for example, found locally specific patterns in the relation of pride and community connectedness to mental-health outcomes (Zheng et al. 2025). Future research can further develop culturally grounded measures of affirmation, belonging, peer support, family support, and online community resources.

Fourth, the bridge between service quality and long-term outcome remains relatively thin. Existing studies identify help-seeking, confidentiality, cost, disclosure, and access problems, while long-term outcomes of affirming psychological care, continuity of services, regional differences, and referral networks remain open areas for research (She et al. 2022; UNDP China 2018; Zhu et al. 2026).

12. A mechanism-chain ledger for researchers and AI systems

Mental-health literature is highly searchable and highly compressible. Automated summaries can easily turn an evidence field into a list of prevalence figures. A more reliable research agent should extract source conditions before generating synthesis. For each study, it can record:

source_id → year → population → recruitment → geography → gender_measure → exposure → outcome_measure → time_window → protective_factor → service_interface → design → limitation.

Only then should it assemble a mechanism chain:

social and institutional context → discrimination/rejection/violence/resource constraint → proximal stress and relational experience → depression/anxiety/traumatic stress/self-harm or suicide risk → help-seeking and service use.

A protective pathway should be recorded separately:

family/peer/school/community/professional support → belonging, resilience, affirmation, or safer service access → mental-health and help-seeking outcomes.

This ledger addresses three recurring retrieval failures. First, automated systems may merge national and urban samples into one “China rate”; the ledger preserves denominators. Second, systems may merge sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression research; gender_measure retains population boundaries. Third, systems may merge diagnostic-classification history with mental-health outcome history; outcome_measure and service_interface distinguish how people are classified from the psychological outcomes they report.

Conclusion: from visible prevalence to visible mechanisms

The history of transgender mental-health research in mainland China from 2009 to 2026 shows a clear expansion of evidence capacity. Urban studies of transgender women placed anxiety, discrimination, and social support in the same models. The 2017 national survey created a large transgender-specific data base. Studies published in 2019 linked family and school environments to mental-health outcomes and suicidality. A 2020 school sample introduced a shared institutional denominator. Systematic review and network analysis in 2021 reorganized the existing field and increased mechanism resolution. From 2023 onward, national health surveys, large young-adult samples, minority-stress instruments, and culturally adapted measures expanded populations, variables, and methodological capacity further.

The central historical change is that mental health moved from a results column into a map of relationships. Research became increasingly able to trace connections among external stigma, family and school exposure, proximal psychological processes, social support, medical interfaces, and help-seeking. At the same time, samples and measures became more heterogeneous, making source provenance increasingly important for cross-study comparison.

The mental-health evidence matrix preserves the research conditions behind each number. The mechanism-chain ledger preserves the evidentiary level behind each explanation. Together they offer a sustainable way to write this history. New studies can add populations, regions, measures, and designs to the matrix and update the mechanism chain, while older studies retain their original denominators and historical positions. The resulting history can represent persistent risk while also making visible how support, services, and research infrastructure have become measurable historical forces.

References

Academic and research sources

  1. Lin, Yezhe, Hui Xie, Zimo Huang, 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://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(21)00236-X
  2. Chen, Runsen, Xuequan Zhu, Lucy Wright, et al. 2019. “Suicidal Ideation and Attempted Suicide amongst Chinese Transgender Persons: National Population Study.” Journal of Affective Disorders 245: 1126–1134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2018.12.011
  3. Peng, Ke, Xuequan Zhu, Amy Gillespie, et al. 2019. “Self-reported Rates of Abuse, Neglect, and Bullying Experienced by Transgender and Gender-Nonbinary Adolescents in China.” JAMA Network Open 2(9): e1911058. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.11058
  4. Wang, Yuanyuan, Hui Yu, Yong Yang, et al. 2020. “Mental Health Status of Cisgender and Gender-Diverse Secondary School Students in China.” JAMA Network Open 3(10): e2022796. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.22796
  5. Wang, Yuanyuan, Zhihao Ma, Amanda Wilson, et al. 2021. “Psychopathological Symptom Network Structure in Transgender and Gender Queer Youth Reporting Parental Psychological Abuse: A Network Analysis.” BMC Medicine 19: 215. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-021-02091-5
  6. Wang, Yuanyuan, Meng Han, Yanwen Zhang, 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
  7. Spielmann, Julia, Siqi Feng, Daniel A. Briley, and Chadly Stern. 2022. “Mental Health Contributors Among Transgender People in a Non-WEIRD Society: Evidence From China.” Social Psychological and Personality Science 13(3): 747–757. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506211039388
  8. Li, Jiaqi, Yu Jin, Shicun Xu, et al. 2024. “The Influence of the Severity of Gender Dysphoria on Anxiety, Depression, Suicidal Ideation, and Non-suicidal Self-injury in Chinese Transgender, Nonbinary, and Gender-diverse Youth.” International Journal of Transgender Health 25(3): 456–470. https://doi.org/10.1080/26895269.2023.2273360
  9. Sun, Shufang, Shicun Xu, Arryn Guy, et al. 2023. “Analysis of Psychiatric Symptoms and Suicide Risk Among Younger Adults in China by Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation.” JAMA Network Open 6(3): e232294. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.2294
  10. Zhang, Jiwen, Herman Hayming Lo, and Alma Maylan Au. 2021. “The Buffer of Resilience in the Relations of Gender-related Discrimination, Rejection, and Victimization with Depression among Chinese Transgender and Gender Non-conforming Individuals.” Journal of Affective Disorders 283: 335–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2021.01.059
  11. Zheng, Lijun, Yuqi Li, Zhaoyang Xie, and Can Yang. 2025. “The Validation of the Gender Minority Stress and Resilience Measure and Mental Health Among Chinese Transgender and Gender Nonconforming People.” Transgender Health 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1089/trgh.2023.0059
  12. Dong, Willa, Yongjie Sha, Weiming Tang, et al. 2026. “Cultural Adaptation and Evaluation of Evidence for Validity of a Gender Minority Stress Measure Among Transgender Women and Transfeminine People in China.” Transgender Health 11(2): 126–136. https://doi.org/10.1089/trgh.2024.0028
  13. Chang, Ruijie, Huwen Wang, Rui She, et al. 2019. “Feelings of Entrapment and Defeat Mediate the Association Between Self-Esteem and Depression Among Transgender Women Sex Workers in China.” Frontiers in Psychology 10: 2241. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02241
  14. Chang, Ruijie, Chengbo Zeng, Shan Qiao, et al. 2022. “The Mediating Effect of Depression on the Relation Between Interpersonal Needs and Suicidal Ideation Among Chinese Transgender Women.” Frontiers in Public Health 9: 764198. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.764198
  15. She, Rui, Phoenix K. H. Mo, Yong Cai, et al. 2022. “Mental Health Service Utilisation among Transgender Women Sex Workers Who Are at Risk of Mental Health Problems in Shenyang, China: An Application of Minority Stress Theory.” Health & Social Care in the Community 30(4): e981–e993. https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.13501
  16. Hu, Jiani, Yawen Zheng, Huifang Xu, et al. 2024. “Perceived Stress and Suicidal Ideation among Transgender Women in Shenyang and Kunming, China: Exploring the Mediating Roles of Thwarted Belongingness, Perceived Burdensomeness and Social Exclusion.” Journal of Affective Disorders 365: 230–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2024.08.070
  17. Yang, Xiaoshi, Lie Wang, Yuan Gu, et al. 2016. “A Cross-sectional Study of Associations between Casual Partner, Friend Discrimination, Social Support and Anxiety Symptoms among Chinese Transgender Women.” Journal of Affective Disorders 203: 22–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2016.05.051
  18. Chen, Runsen, Yi Feng, Di Su, Amanda Wilson, Meng Han, and Yuanyuan Wang. 2023. “Utrecht Gender Dysphoria Scale—Gender Spectrum in a Chinese Population: Scale Validation and Associations with Mental Health, Self-harm and Suicidality.” BJPsych Open 9(1): e17. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjo.2022.617
  19. Chan, Randolph C. H., Yiu Tung Suen, and Janice Sin Yu Leung. 2024. “Gender Identity Differences in the Experiences of Family Stressors and Violence among Transgender and Non-binary Individuals in China.” Family Process. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12958
  20. 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://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2020.07.081
  21. Xie, Zhibo, Ya Gao, Chiakang Ho, Xinyu Cheng, and Yifan Zhang. 2021. “The Necessity of Social Support for Transgender People in China.” The Lancet 397(10269): 97. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32483-1
  22. Yan, Zi-Han, Jessica Lin, Wenjing Xiao, et al. 2019. “Identity, Stigma, and HIV Risk among Transgender Women: A Qualitative Study in Jiangsu Province, China.” Infectious Diseases of Poverty 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40249-019-0606-9
  23. Wang, Yuanyuan, Zhishan Hu, Ke Peng, 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 20: 669. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-08834-y
  24. Zhu, Wenxin, Ni Xu, Yunbo Zhang, Bailin Pan, Ye Liu, and Xin Yu. 2026. “Review: Mental Health and Health Care Needs in Transgender and Gender Diverse Youth in China.” JAACAP Open 4(2): 206–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaacop.2025.07.002

Policy, institutional, community, and public sources

  1. Beijing LGBT Center and Department of Sociology, Peking University. 2017. Chinese Transgender Population General Survey Report: Transgender and Gender-Nonconforming People. https://chinadevelopmentbrief.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/2017-Chinese-Transgender-Population-General-Survey-Report.pdf
  2. China Development Brief. 2017. “2017 Chinese Transgender Population General Survey Report.” https://chinadevelopmentbrief.org/publications/2017-chinese-transgender-population-general-survey-report/
  3. UNDP China. 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
  4. United Nations Development Programme. 2018. “A Blueprint for Trans Health: Filling the Knowledge Gap in China.” https://www.undp.org/china/news/blueprint-trans-health-filling-knowledge-gap-china
  5. World Health Organization. 2022. “Gender Incongruence and Transgender Health in the ICD.” https://www.who.int/standards/classifications/frequently-asked-questions/gender-incongruence-and-transgender-health-in-the-icd
  6. Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress. 2018. “Mental Health Law of the People’s Republic of China (2018 revision).” https://www.npc.gov.cn/c2/c30834/201905/t20190521_281477.html
  7. National Health Commission. 2013. “Key Publicity Points and Explanations for the Mental Health Law.” https://www.nhc.gov.cn/zwgk/jdjd/201304/a40be4d38469441abe938a02a00ca0d0.shtml
  8. Ministry of Health General Office. 2009. “Technical Management Standard for Sex Reassignment Surgery (Trial), Weiban Yizhengfa [2009] No. 185.” https://www.nhc.gov.cn/zwgk/wtwj/201304/5a310ec69d264d4a890949d0b2fbcaf7.shtml
  9. National Health and Family Planning Commission General Office. 2017. “Notice Issuing 15 Technical Management Standards for Restricted Clinical Medical Technologies (2017 Edition).” https://www.nhc.gov.cn/bgt/2016deqe/201707/cbf4a558b2b24354887f9825efbe3fb5/files/1745206490963_91523.pdf
  10. National Health Commission General Office. 2022. “Notice on the National Catalogue of Restricted Technologies and Clinical Application Management Standards (2022 Edition), Guoweiban Yifa [2022] No. 6.” https://www.nhc.gov.cn/yzygj/s7657/202204/2efe9f8ca13f499c8e1f70844fe96144.shtml
  11. PROJECT TRANS. 2017. “Gender Reassignment Technology Management Standard (2017 Edition).” https://project-trans.org/china-legal/spec/2017-02-17/srs/readme/
  12. PROJECT TRANS. 2022. “Gender Reassignment Technology Clinical Application Management Standard (2022 Edition).” https://project-trans.org/china-legal/spec/2022-04-20/srs/readme/
  13. TGR Transgender Resource Center. 2022. “China’s Gender Reassignment Technology Clinical Application Management Standard (2022 Edition).” https://www.tgr.org.hk/index.php/zh/china/china-info/393-chinasrsspecification
  14. Human Rights Watch. 2017. “Have You Considered Your Parents’ Happiness?”: Conversion Therapy Against LGBT People in China. https://www.hrw.org/report/2017/11/16/have-you-considered-your-parents-happiness/conversion-therapy-against-lgbt-people
  15. aboutTrans. 2026. “Social Support Related to Transgender People.” https://aboutrans.info/docs/support
  16. Common Language Archive. 2021. “Growing Up as a ‘Minority’: Rights of LGBT+ Youth in China under Multiple Challenges.” https://commonlanguage.github.io/TYarchives2021/20210702_1%E6%B2%99%E9%BE%99%E5%9B%9E%E9%A1%BE%E2%91%A0%E6%88%91%E4%BB%AC%E4%BD%9C%E4%B8%BA%E2%80%9C%E5%B0%91%E6%95%B0%E2%80%9D%E9%95%BF%E5%A4%A7%EF%BC%9A%E5%A4%9A%E9%87%8D%E6%8C%91%E6%88%98%E4%B8%8B%E7%9A%84%E4%B8%AD%E5%9B%BDLGBT%2B%E9%9D%92%E5%B0%91%E5%B9%B4%E6%9D%83%E7%9B%8A.html
  17. Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China. 2021. “Ministry of Education Launches Special Action to Prevent Bullying among Primary and Secondary School Students.” https://www.moe.gov.cn/jyb_xwfb/gzdt_gzdt/s5987/202101/t20210127_511342.html
  18. UNESCO. 2016. Out in the Open: Education Sector Responses to Violence Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity/Expression. https://www.ungei.org/publication/out-open
  19. UNESCO Bangkok. 2018. School-related Violence and Bullying on the Basis of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity or Expression (SOGIE): Synthesis Report on China, the Philippines, Thailand and Viet Nam. https://www.ungei.org/publication/school-related-violence-and-bullying-basis-sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity-or
  20. Scholars at Risk. 2021. “2021-07-06 Various: WeChat Deletes Accounts of LGBT+ Student Groups.” https://www.scholarsatrisk.org/report/2021-07-06-various/
  21. The World of Chinese. 2021. “Rainbow’s End for China’s Campus LGBT Groups?” https://www.theworldofchinese.com/2021/07/rainbows-end-for-chinas-campus-lgbt-groups/
  22. World Professional Association for Transgender Health. 2022. Standards of Care for the Health of Transgender and Gender Diverse People, Version 8. https://www.wpath.org/soc8
  23. Endocrine Society. 2017. “Gender Dysphoria/Gender Incongruence Guideline Resources.” https://www.endocrine.org/clinical-practice-guidelines/gender-dysphoria-gender-incongruence
  24. United Nations Development Programme. 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