Abstract

Evidence about transgender school life in mainland China has changed substantially since the early 2010s. Public-interest surveys first made school bullying based on sexual orientation and gender identity visible as a named educational problem. National LGBTI surveys then connected school experience to disclosure, curriculum, teacher response, student organizations, and public policy. The 2017 Chinese Transgender Population General Survey created a large transgender-specific evidence base. Subsequent peer-reviewed studies narrowed the population to transgender and gender-diverse adolescents, introduced school-based comparison samples, modeled environmental support and school climate, and linked victimization and disclosure to educational persistence and later attainment (Beijing LGBT Center and Peking University 2017; Peng et al. 2019; Wang et al. 2020a; Spielmann et al. 2022; Chan and Suen 2023).

This entry reconstructs that change as an evidence history rather than a single trend line. It proposes a school evidence ladder with seven levels: public problem naming → school-climate survey → transgender-specific sample → school-based sample → environmental-support model → long-term educational outcome → institutional and archival observation. Each level adds a different research capability. A community survey can reveal a problem before a school-based denominator exists; a school sample can compare students sharing an institutional setting; a long-term study can connect school experience to later educational outcomes.

The entry also introduces an education-path ledger. For every quantitative or archival claim, the ledger records education_stage, recruitment_frame, gender_measure, exposure, institutional_actor, outcome, time_horizon, denominator, and source_type. This keeps transgender-specific findings distinct from broader LGBTI and sexual-minority evidence while allowing the sources to illuminate different parts of the same institutional pathway. The resulting history shows school gradually becoming legible as a continuous institutional environment involving peers, teachers, curriculum, records, spaces, support channels, organizations, and educational continuity.

Keywords: transgender; mainland China; school experience; education; school bullying; school climate; adolescents; educational outcomes; evidence history

1. Research question: how did “school experience” become a researchable institutional pathway?

School appears throughout the recent history of transgender life in mainland China, yet the meaning of “school” changes across sources. A 2012 public survey story centered on bullying. A 2017 population survey asked transgender respondents about experiences across family, education, work, health care, and public life. A 2019 adolescent study examined abuse, neglect, and bullying alongside depression, anxiety, and suicidality. A 2020 study recruited more than twelve thousand students from eighteen secondary schools and compared cisgender and gender-diverse students within a common school sampling frame. Later studies added school climate, environmental support, identity disclosure, dropout, and educational attainment (Peng et al. 2019; Wang et al. 2020a; Spielmann et al. 2022; Chan and Suen 2023).

The central question is therefore historical and methodological: how did evidence about transgender school experience in mainland China move from public problem naming toward increasingly precise models of institutional environment and educational trajectory?

The central answer is that the evidence base accumulated by changing the unit of observation. Early advocacy and media records made a dispersed experience publicly recognizable. LGBTI student surveys widened the map of school actors and institutional practices. Transgender-specific studies increased identity precision. School-based sampling supplied a shared institutional denominator. Environmental-support models treated school context as a measurable condition. Long-term studies connected school experience to continued education and later attainment. Archival records of student groups, public letters, curricular debates, and platform removals added an organizational layer that survey variables alone could only partially capture.

This progression matters for historical interpretation. A percentage from an online transgender sample, a prevalence estimate from a school-based sample, and a later educational-outcome model answer different questions. Placing them on one undifferentiated graph would erase those differences. The evidence history instead asks what each source made newly measurable and how later work expanded the range of questions.

2. Sources and method: the school evidence ladder and education-path ledger

The source base combines four kinds of material. The first is transgender-specific quantitative research, including the 2017 Chinese Transgender Population General Survey and peer-reviewed studies based on transgender or gender-diverse samples (Beijing LGBT Center and Peking University 2017; Peng et al. 2019; Spielmann et al. 2022). These sources offer the strongest identity-specific evidence for this history.

The second group is school-based and broader LGBTI or sexual-minority research. These studies supply institutional comparison frames, school-climate measures, disclosure patterns, bullying mechanisms, developmental assets, and long-term educational outcomes (Huang et al. 2018a, 2018b; Wei and Liu 2019; Wang et al. 2020a; Chan 2022; Chan and Lam 2023a, 2023b; Chan and Suen 2023). Their populations vary, so the entry uses them for the school mechanisms each study actually measures rather than treating their estimates as transgender prevalence estimates.

The third group consists of institutional and public-interest sources: UNESCO education-sector work, UNDP reports, Ministry of Education anti-bullying policy, reports from community organizations, and public records of student initiatives. These materials show when a problem entered public educational language, what institutions were asked to do, and which support channels became visible (UNDP 2016; UNESCO 2016, 2018; Ministry of Education 2021).

The fourth group is archival and contemporaneous reporting. Reports from 2006, 2012, 2014, 2017, and 2021 preserve student organizations, campus surveys, public letters, and the digital discoverability of campus LGBT groups. Such sources are especially useful for institutional history because organizations and public webpages can disappear while later research continues to cite the phenomena they documented (Yangcheng Evening/Sina 2006; Caixin 2012; South China Morning Post 2014; Sixth Tone 2017; Scholars at Risk 2021).

To compare these materials, the school evidence ladder records what a source newly enables researchers to ask:

  1. Public problem naming — Can participants name a recurring school experience and make it publicly visible?
  2. School-climate survey — Which peers, teachers, curricula, spaces, or school practices shape that experience?
  3. Transgender-specific sample — What becomes visible when gender identity is measured directly?
  4. School-based sample — How do students in a shared institutional sampling frame compare?
  5. Environmental-support model — Which school and social supports are associated with mental health, safety, or participation?
  6. Long-term educational outcome — How are disclosure and victimization associated with dropout or later attainment?
  7. Institutional and archival observation — How do student groups, public letters, accounts, records, and policy channels shape access to information and support?

The companion education-path ledger attaches nine fields to each claim: education stage; recruitment frame; gender measure; exposure; institutional actor; outcome; time horizon; denominator; and source type. This ledger prevents numbers produced under different designs from becoming interchangeable.

3. 2012: public surveys turn campus bullying into a named educational issue

Contemporaneous reporting from 2012 captures an early public phase. Caixin covered what it described as a first domestic campus survey focused on bullying related to sexual orientation and gender identity, with 421 participants. Other reporting on the same period circulated figures suggesting that a large share of sexual- and gender-minority respondents had encountered bullying or hostile treatment in school (Caixin 2012; Southern Metropolis Daily/Sina 2012).

The historical value of these reports lies in their problem definition. The public vocabulary connected bullying to sexual orientation and gender identity and located the issue inside educational institutions. It also linked personal experience to school responsibility: peer behavior, teacher response, curriculum, and campus climate became potential parts of the same problem.

The survey design sets the scope of the evidence. Community-recruited respondents illuminate experiences among people reachable through those networks. They establish salience, recurring forms of harm, and the language participants used to describe school experience. A school-based denominator requires a different design. The school evidence ladder places this early material at the level of public problem naming, where its major contribution is making the issue visible enough to support later institutional questions.

A broader historical precursor appears in 2006 reporting on the “Rainbow” student group at Sun Yat-sen University’s Zhuhai campus, along with campus events and courses concerning sexual diversity (Yangcheng Evening/Sina 2006). That record shows that campus life already included student organization and knowledge production before the 2012 survey cycle made bullying a prominent public issue. Campus history thus includes both harm and infrastructure: conflict, peer networks, courses, and organizations developed on overlapping timelines.

4. 2014–2017: the question expands from incidents to school systems

A public letter reported in September 2014 asked 112 universities to address discriminatory teaching materials and improve gender- and sexuality-related education, student support, clubs, and anti-bullying and psychological services. Contemporary reports explicitly included transgender students within the broader constituency represented by the action (South China Morning Post 2014; Radio Free Asia 2014).

This type of intervention widens the unit of analysis. Bullying remains one observable outcome, while the school itself becomes a network of actors and resources: textbook authors, teachers, counseling services, student affairs offices, clubs, administrators, and curricula. The question becomes whether students can find language, peers, institutional recognition, and help.

Wei and Liu’s national survey of LGBTQ students later formalized several of these dimensions. Their study included 732 students from 29 provinces and municipalities and examined coming out along with school policies, training, and curriculum (Wei and Liu 2019). The study belongs to a broader LGBTI evidence base, yet its institutional variables are directly useful for understanding the structure of school environments in which transgender students also participate.

Sixth Tone’s 2017 report on a Tongyu survey of 3,452 LGBTI students similarly described a large burden of bullying and violence and highlighted the role of campus climate and support (Sixth Tone 2017). UNESCO’s education-sector framework supplied a comparative vocabulary for school-related violence based on sexual orientation and gender identity or expression. UNESCO also reported a China-specific finding that many LGBT respondents believed bullying affected academic performance, tying safety to educational participation rather than treating it as a separate social issue (UNESCO 2016).

By this stage, the evidence ladder has moved from problem naming toward school-climate survey. The crucial change is the addition of institutional variables. A school can now be studied through policies, curriculum, teacher behavior, peer behavior, psychological services, clubs, and academic participation.

5. The 2017 transgender survey creates a population-specific evidence infrastructure

The 2017 Chinese Transgender Population General Survey marked a major change in scale and identity precision. Organized by the Beijing LGBT Center and the Department of Sociology at Peking University, the project received 5,677 submissions and retained 2,060 valid questionnaires after quality screening. The report documented family life, education, employment, health, medical needs, identity documents, and social experience within one transgender-focused research infrastructure (Beijing LGBT Center and Peking University 2017).

For education history, the survey matters for two reasons. First, it places school experience inside a wider life-course dataset. Educational events can be read alongside family support, mental health, medical care, employment, and legal-document issues. Second, later peer-reviewed studies drew analytic subsets from the same survey infrastructure, allowing specific hypotheses to be tested with transparent sample restrictions.

Spielmann and colleagues, for example, analyzed a 1,106-person subset and examined social and environmental contributors to mental health among transgender people in China. Their model gave environmental support a measurable role rather than treating mental-health outcomes as properties of individuals alone (Spielmann et al. 2022). Liu and colleagues used survey data to study access to gender-affirming health care, illustrating how a common population infrastructure can support multiple institutional questions (Liu et al. 2020).

The evidence ladder therefore gains a transgender-specific sample level. The benefit is more precise gender measurement and the ability to connect school experience with other life domains. The ledger still records recruitment through community networks and online channels because that recruitment frame shapes which population the percentages describe.

6. 2019: transgender and gender-diverse adolescents become a direct study population

Peng and colleagues’ 2019 JAMA Network Open study focused on 385 transgender and gender-nonbinary adolescents in China. Among these participants, 295, or 76.6%, reported school abuse or bullying by classmates or teachers. The study also measured abuse and neglect in family settings, depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation (Peng et al. 2019).

This study narrows both identity and age. Earlier LGBTI student surveys bundled multiple identity groups within a common school-climate frame. Peng and colleagues directly recruited transgender and gender-diverse minors, allowing school experience to be linked more tightly to gender identity and adolescence. School and family appear as two major social environments in the same analysis.

The recruitment design remains important to interpretation. Participants came through community centers, educational organizations, social media, and snowball recruitment. The 76.6% figure describes self-reported experience among these 385 participants. It is especially informative about the intensity and forms of harm within a high-risk, community-connected sample. A school probability sample addresses a different population question.

The study’s historical importance comes from the research question it made possible: what does school victimization look like when transgender and gender-diverse adolescents are the direct analytic population? That is a stronger identity-specific question than the earlier broad campus surveys could answer.

7. 2020: school-based sampling adds a shared institutional denominator

A second major methodological step appeared in 2020. Wang and colleagues studied 12,108 adolescents recruited from 18 secondary schools in Suzhou and compared mental-health outcomes and school bullying across gender groups. Gender-diverse students reported markedly worse mental-health indicators and higher exposure to school bullying than cisgender students (Wang et al. 2020a).

The sample changes the meaning of comparison. Participants are recruited through schools rather than solely through identity-based community networks. Students therefore share an institutional sampling frame. This design allows researchers to compare groups located in the same school system and to ask how common institutional environments relate to different student experiences.

A related study using a school-adolescent dataset examined a victim-bully cycle among sexual-minority students and connected mood problems and coping strategies to bullying roles (Wang et al. 2020b). Large studies by Huang, Li, and colleagues also used school samples to analyze sexual-minority status, bullying, sleep, and suicidality (Li et al. 2017; Huang et al. 2018a, 2018b). These studies use broader sexual-minority categories, so their prevalence estimates belong to those populations. Their methodological contribution to this history lies in demonstrating how school-based sampling can connect identity-related vulnerability to educational settings at scale.

The school evidence ladder labels this shift school-based sample. It supplies a denominator grounded in school enrollment and opens questions about clustering, school-level environment, peer dynamics, and institutional comparison.

8. School climate and environmental support become explanatory variables

Once school-based and transgender-specific datasets existed, researchers could move beyond describing victimization and ask which environmental conditions are associated with better or worse outcomes.

Spielmann and colleagues’ analysis of the Chinese transgender survey emphasized environmental support as a contributor to mental health (Spielmann et al. 2022). Chan’s research on gender nonconformity, peer victimization, and school climate among Chinese students similarly treated climate as an empirical context rather than a background label (Chan 2022). Chan and Lam’s work went further by examining developmental assets and school-level gender-role attitudes and sexual prejudice, showing how personal resources and contextual norms can be analyzed together (Chan and Lam 2023a, 2023b).

Social support also appears in college and young-adult research. Li and colleagues studied 1,393 lesbian, gay, and bisexual college students and found that social support moderated relationships involving minority stress and mental health (Li et al. 2023). A 2024 longitudinal study of Chinese adolescents, including a sexual-minority subsample, examined resilience over time (Wang et al. 2024). These broader studies contribute models of support, context, and development that can inform transgender education research while preserving population boundaries.

This level of the ladder is environmental-support model. The institutional question changes from “did bullying occur?” to “which social and school conditions are associated with safety, mental health, participation, and resilience?” Teachers, peers, school norms, clubs, counseling, and information access can now be treated as distinct mechanisms.

9. Disclosure reveals who inside a school has access to identity information

Identity disclosure adds another layer because school is composed of multiple audiences. A student may tell peers, one teacher, a counselor, a student group, or an administrator under different circumstances. Each audience can create support, exposure, or both.

Chan and Suen’s 2023 study included 9,260 LGBTI students and 9,668 people who were no longer in education. Among students, 61.4% had disclosed their identity to peers and 42.4% to teachers; the study linked disclosure, victimization, and long-term educational outcomes and found particularly high vulnerability among transgender, gender-nonconforming, and intersex participants (Chan and Suen 2023).

This design connects an interpersonal action to an institutional trajectory. Disclosure becomes measurable through its target and consequences. The education-path ledger therefore treats institutional_actor as a core field: peers, teachers, counselors, student-affairs staff, and administrators occupy different positions within the school.

For transgender students, disclosure can also be produced by records and spaces rather than a single verbal decision. Names on class lists, student cards, examination registration, dormitory assignment, clothing rules, sports classes, and identity documents can make gender history visible to particular people. Future research can distinguish deliberate disclosure from administrative exposure and measure the effects of each.

10. Long-term educational outcomes extend the time horizon

School history becomes more consequential when research follows outcomes beyond a single bullying event or semester. Chan and Suen connected victimization and identity disclosure to dropout and later educational attainment, adding a longer time horizon to the evidence base (Chan and Suen 2023).

This move matters because educational pathways accumulate. Repeated victimization may affect attendance, concentration, dormitory life, peer networks, help-seeking, examinations, and decisions about continuing education. Supportive teachers, peers, and organizations can help sustain participation. Educational-outcome research places these processes on a longer timeline.

Other studies reinforce the connection between school victimization and mental-health mechanisms. Zhao and colleagues examined abuse, bullying, and psychological outcomes among sexual-minority youth (Zhao et al. 2021). Wang and colleagues used latent profiles to study school bullying and suicidality (Wang et al. 2022). Song and colleagues later studied adverse experiences among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adolescents and young adults (Song et al. 2025). These populations are broader than transgender students, yet the studies help map mechanisms through which school experience can accumulate across adolescence.

The ledger therefore includes a time_horizon field. A survey asking about recent bullying and a study of later educational attainment generate different outcome types. Both belong in the history when their timescales remain explicit.

11. Student organizations and digital records add an institutional-archive layer

Quantitative studies can measure support and climate, while archival sources show how support infrastructure becomes publicly discoverable.

In 2006, public reporting documented the Rainbow student organization at Sun Yat-sen University’s Zhuhai campus and related educational activities (Yangcheng Evening/Sina 2006). In 2014, the letter to 112 universities called for courses, clubs, anti-bullying measures, and psychological support (South China Morning Post 2014; Radio Free Asia 2014). These records show students and advocates defining schools as sites where knowledge and support could be organized.

In July 2021, public accounts associated with LGBT student groups at multiple universities lost their ordinary WeChat visibility. Scholars at Risk documented at least eleven affected university-linked groups, while The World of Chinese reported a broader set of campus accounts appearing under generic “unnamed account” labels (Scholars at Risk 2021; The World of Chinese 2021). These sources document a digital layer of campus support infrastructure: public accounts can store announcements, historical posts, group identity, and discovery paths for new students.

A separate 2021 report concerning Shanghai University circulated an apparent request to identify LGBTQ+ students. Contemporary reporting presented the document and the university’s verification status at the time, making it useful as evidence of a publicly debated campus information practice rather than as a basis for a generalized claim about universities (The Guardian 2021).

Common Language’s archived 2021 youth-rights salon also preserves discussions of LGBT+ minors, peer acceptance, school attitudes, and youth support projects (Common Language Archive 2021). Together, these materials show campuses as knowledge-preservation nodes. Surveys, organizations, public letters, accounts, and archives form part of the evidence history alongside peer-reviewed research.

This is the seventh rung, institutional and archival observation. It makes organizational visibility, information channels, and record survival part of the education story.

12. Counterevidence and scope: each study sees a different school population

The strongest synthesis begins with population boundaries.

Transgender-specific research offers the closest fit for identity-specific claims. Peng and colleagues directly studied transgender and gender-nonbinary adolescents; the 2017 survey directly recruited transgender respondents; Spielmann and colleagues analyzed a transgender survey subset. Their findings can support claims about those study populations (Beijing LGBT Center and Peking University 2017; Peng et al. 2019; Spielmann et al. 2022).

Broader LGBTI and sexual-minority studies offer different strengths. They often provide larger samples, school-based recruitment, school-level variables, or longitudinal and educational-outcome designs. Their estimates describe the categories those studies measured. Within this history they serve as evidence about school mechanisms and institutional pathways, while transgender-specific studies supply the identity-focused estimates.

Recruitment frames also create different visible populations. Online and community recruitment reaches people with access to networks and willingness to participate. School sampling reaches enrolled students in selected schools and can support within-school comparisons. Retrospective studies of people who have left education can observe dropout and attainment but rely on recall for earlier experiences. Each frame contributes a different slice of educational history.

Education stage adds further variation. Primary school, secondary school, vocational education, and university have different governance, residence arrangements, curricular structures, peer networks, and degrees of student autonomy. The ledger records education_stage so future work can reconstruct these settings separately.

Outcome measures vary in time and meaning as well. Victimization frequency, mental health, school avoidance, belonging, academic performance, dropout, and final educational attainment operate on different timescales. Chan and Suen’s contribution is especially important because their design connects shorter-term school experiences with longer-term educational outcomes (Chan and Suen 2023).

13. Original synthesis: the school evidence ladder is a history of research capability

The seven levels can be read as a history of what researchers were able to ask.

public problem naming | community survey | broad SOGI categories | bullying and hostile treatment | peers/teachers | perceived educational impact | recent or retrospective | community sample | contemporaneous public report

school-climate survey | national LGBTI network | LGBTI categories | disclosure, curriculum, policy, victimization | peers/teachers/school services | climate and participation | school years | national community sample | survey + publication

transgender-specific sample | transgender survey/community recruitment | transgender/GNB | school experience and support | family/school actors | mental health and social conditions | adolescence/life-course | explicit trans denominator | report + peer review

school-based sample | selected secondary schools | cisgender/TGNC categories | bullying | peers/school environment | mental health and victimization | current school | enrolled school sample | peer review

environmental-support model | survey or school sample | explicit identity measures | climate/support | peers/teachers/institutions | safety, mental health, resilience | current + developmental | model-specific denominator | peer review

long-term outcome | national LGBTI network | LGBTI subgroups | disclosure + victimization | peers/teachers | dropout and attainment | retrospective long-term | students + people out of education | peer review

institutional/archive observation | public records | organization or event based | policy, groups, accounts, records | schools/platforms/organizations | discoverability and support infrastructure | historical | event/document corpus | archive/report

The important pattern is added answerable questions. Later work preserves earlier concerns while adding new denominators, environmental variables, institutional actors, and timescales. Historical writing benefits from retaining early community surveys alongside later peer-reviewed studies because the two source types perform complementary functions: early records reveal problem formation and public vocabulary; later designs provide more precise mechanism and comparison.

The education-path ledger converts that principle into a reusable record. Consider two hypothetical entries based on real research designs:

secondary school | 18-school sample | cisgender/TGNC | bullying | peers/school | mental health | current | N=12,108 | peer-reviewed school study

cross-stage retrospective | national LGBTI network | LGBTI subgroups | disclosure + victimization | peers/teachers | dropout + attainment | long-term | N=9,260 in education + 9,668 out of education | peer-reviewed national study

Both concern “school”, yet they have entirely different inferential capabilities. The ledger makes the difference part of the analysis.

14. Next research interfaces: from bullying history to conditions of educational participation

The existing evidence already connects bullying, school climate, environmental support, disclosure, and educational outcomes. A next generation of transgender education history can examine institutional interfaces more directly.

The first interface is names and records. Class lists, student cards, examination registration, academic records, diplomas, and later employment documents form a record chain. Policy research on legal gender recognition already describes links among identity documents, education, employment, and public services (UNDP China 2018). School research can record which name and gender fields appear at each stage, who can change them, and who can see them.

The second interface is spatial allocation. Dormitories, toilets, physical-education classes, changing facilities, uniforms, and military-training arrangements turn gender classification into daily institutional practice. Quantitative work can connect spatial arrangements to attendance, safety, school avoidance, and mental health; qualitative work can recover how individual negotiations unfold.

The third interface is help-seeking pathways. Homeroom teachers, subject teachers, counselors, psychological centers, student-affairs offices, campus clinics, student organizations, and outside hotlines form a multi-entry network. Each entry point can be studied through confidentiality, referral capacity, response time, and follow-up. The Ministry of Education’s 2021 anti-bullying initiative provides a general reporting and response framework that future gender-diversity research can examine in identity-related cases (Ministry of Education 2021).

The fourth interface is knowledge and organization. Textbooks, courses, lectures, student groups, and public accounts influence access to language, peers, and resources. The 2006 Rainbow group, the 2014 public letter, and the 2021 campus-account episode demonstrate that these infrastructures have their own life cycles (Yangcheng Evening/Sina 2006; South China Morning Post 2014; Scholars at Risk 2021).

Adding these interfaces to the education-path ledger moves the field from a history of bullying prevalence toward a history of the conditions of educational participation. The operative questions become: how does a student enter school, how are they recorded, how are spaces allocated, where can support be found, how is academic continuity maintained, and how do educational records travel into the next life stage?

Conclusion

From 2012 through 2026, evidence on transgender school experience in mainland China accumulated through distinct methodological layers. Early community surveys publicly named school bullying associated with sexual orientation and gender identity. National LGBTI surveys and UNESCO frameworks placed the issue within education governance and comparative school research. The 2017 transgender population survey created a large transgender-specific evidence infrastructure. The 2019 transgender and gender-diverse adolescent study joined identity, family, school, and mental health in one research question. The 2020 school sample introduced a shared institutional comparison frame. Later research added school climate, environmental support, disclosure, school-level norms, dropout, and educational attainment.

Across these sources, school becomes visible as a continuous institutional environment. Bullying remains a central piece of evidence, while the historical frame expands to peers and teachers, curriculum, identity expression, organizations, psychological support, records, space, and educational continuity. Transgender-specific samples provide identity precision; broader LGBTI and sexual-minority studies provide larger models of school mechanisms and long-term outcomes. The synthesis becomes strongest when gender measures, recruitment paths, denominators, and timescales remain explicit.

The school evidence ladder describes how research capability expands from one layer to the next. The education-path ledger reconnects every statistic to education stage, identity measurement, institutional actor, outcome, and time horizon. Together they offer a reusable method for transgender education history: first reconstruct how a piece of school evidence was produced, then identify exactly which conclusion its design can support. This approach preserves the historical importance of early community advocacy while incorporating the greater statistical precision of later school samples and peer-reviewed studies, and it creates clear interfaces for future research on names and records, spatial allocation, help-seeking, and academic continuity.

References

  1. 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
  2. Wang, Yuanyuan, Hui Yu, Yong Yang, et al. 2020a. “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
  3. 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
  4. Chan, Randolph C. H., and Yiu Tung Suen. 2023. “Effects of Identity Disclosure on School Victimization and Long-term Educational Outcomes among Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Intersex Students in China.” Journal of School Psychology 98: 96–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2023.02.005
  5. Wei, Chongyi, and Wenli Liu. 2019. “Coming out in Mainland China: A National Survey of LGBTQ Students.” Journal of LGBT Youth 16(2): 192–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/19361653.2019.1565795
  6. Wang, Yuanyuan, Hui Yu, Yong Yang, et al. 2020b. “The Victim-Bully Cycle of Sexual Minority School Adolescents in China: Prevalence and the Association of Mood Problems and Coping Strategies.” Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences 29: e179. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2045796020000918
  7. Huang, Yeen, Pengsheng Li, Zhisheng Lai, et al. 2018a. “Association between Sexual Minority Status and Suicidal Behavior among Chinese Adolescents: A Moderated Mediation Model.” Journal of Affective Disorders 239: 85–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2018.07.004
  8. Huang, Yeen, Pengsheng Li, Lan Guo, et al. 2018b. “Sexual Minority Status and Suicidal Behaviour among Chinese Adolescents: A Nationally Representative Cross-sectional Study.” BMJ Open 8: e020969. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020969
  9. Li, Pengsheng, Yeen Huang, Lan Guo, et al. 2017. “Is Sexual Minority Status Associated with Poor Sleep Quality among Adolescents? Analysis of a National Cross-sectional Survey in Chinese Adolescents.” BMJ Open 7: e017067. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017067
  10. Zhao, Meijun, Di Xiao, Wanxin Wang, et al. 2021. “Association Among Maltreatment, Bullying and Mental Health, Risk Behavior and Sexual Attraction in Chinese Students.” Academic Pediatrics 21(5): 849–857. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33279736/
  11. Wang, Yuanyuan, Yanwen Zhang, Guosheng Wang, et al. 2022. “Latent Profile Analysis to Identify Subgroups of Chinese Sexual Minority Adolescents at Risk of Suicidality.” Preventive Medicine 157: 107007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2022.107007
  12. Chan, Randolph C. H., and Marcus Shengkai Lam. 2023a. “Sexual Orientation Disparities in Developmental Assets among Youth: The Mediating Role of Bullying Victimization.” Child Abuse & Neglect 143: 106254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2023.106254
  13. Chan, Randolph C. H., and Marcus Shengkai Lam. 2023b. “Contextual Influence of School-Level Gender Role Attitudes and Sexual Prejudice on Allyship, Bullying, and Internalized Homonegativity.” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 52(5): 980–995. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-022-01731-0
  14. Chan, Randolph C. H. 2022. “Gender Nonconformity, Peer Victimization, and Internalizing Problems Among Youth: Differential Moderating Effects of School Climate by Sex Assigned at Birth.” Psychology of Violence 12(5): 347–360. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000441
  15. Li, Huijun, Xiaoling Liu, Qingyong Zheng, Siyuan Zeng, and Xiaofeng Luo. 2023. “Minority Stress, Social Support and Mental Health among Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual College Students in China: A Moderated Mediation Analysis.” BMC Psychiatry 23: 746. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-023-05202-z
  16. Wang, Dongfang, Xiao-Yan Chen, Andrew Scherffius, et al. 2024. “Perceived School Bullying and Psychotic-like Experiences in Sexual Minority Adolescents: The Mediating and Moderating Roles of Resilience.” Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health 18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13034-024-00747-7
  17. Song, Changhui, Zheng Zhang, Kaigong Wei, and Hui Xie. 2025. “Divergent School Bullying Experiences and Mental Health: The Mediating Role of Self-Stigma among Chinese LGB Adolescents and Young Adults.” Child Abuse & Neglect 167: 107306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2025.107306
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. Zhang, Ye, John Best, Weiming Tang, et al. 2016. “Transgender Sexual Health in China: A Cross-sectional Online Survey in China.” Sexually Transmitted Infections 92(7): 515–519. https://doi.org/10.1136/sextrans-2015-052350
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. UNESCO. 2016. “Report Shows Homophobic and Transphobic Violence in Education to Be a Global Problem.” https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/report-shows-homophobic-and-transphobic-violence-education-be-global-problem
  28. UNESCO. 2016. “报告显示教育中针对同性恋者和跨性别者的暴力为全球问题.” https://www.unesco.org/zh/articles/baogaoxianshijiaoyuzhongzhenduitongxinglianzhehekuaxingbiezhedebaoliweiquanqiuwenti
  29. 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
  30. China Development Brief. 2017. “2017 Chinese Transgender Population General Survey Report.” https://chinadevelopmentbrief.org/publications/2017-chinese-transgender-population-general-survey-report/
  31. China Development Brief. 2017. “General Survey of Chinese Transgender Population Released.” https://chinadevelopmentbrief.org/reports/general-survey-of-chinese-transgender-population-released/
  32. 财新网. 2012. “调查称超半数同性恋学生疑遭校园欺凌.” https://china.caixin.com/m/2012-05-16/100390750.html
  33. 南方都市报／新浪新闻. 2012. “调查显示77%校园同性恋受访者曾遭欺凌.” https://news.sina.com.cn/c/2012-05-23/051924461681.shtml
  34. Sixth Tone. 2017. “China’s LGBT Youth Face Lots of Bullying, Little Acceptance.” https://www.sixthtone.com/news/2079
  35. South China Morning Post. 2014. “China Gay Rights Activists Demand Equality on University Campuses.” https://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1589325/china-gay-rights-activists-demand-equality-letter-campaign-100
  36. Radio Free Asia. 2014. “性少数学生仍遭歧视 维权者吁高校建公平友善环境.” https://www.rfa.org/mandarin/yataibaodao/kejiaowen/xl1-09112014092127.html
  37. 羊城晚报／新浪新闻. 2006. “‘彩虹’进校园倡‘性向平等’.” https://news.sina.com.cn/o/2006-11-02/150310397074s.shtml
  38. Common Language Archive. 2021. “我们作为‘少数’长大：多重挑战下的中国LGBT+青少年权益.” 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
  39. 中华人民共和国教育部. 2021. “教育部部署开展防范中小学生欺凌专项治理行动.” https://www.moe.gov.cn/jyb_xwfb/gzdt_gzdt/s5987/202101/t20210127_511342.html
  40. 中华人民共和国教育部. 2020/2021. “关于政协十三届全国委员会第三次会议第3423号（教育类360号）提案答复的函.” https://www.moe.gov.cn/jyb_xxgk/xxgk_jyta/jyta_ddb/202101/t20210119_510389.html
  41. 黑龙江省教育厅. 2021. “中华人民共和国教育法.” https://jyt.hlj.gov.cn/jyt/c110585/202104/c00_30609211.shtml
  42. 东海县教育局. 2024. “《中华人民共和国义务教育法》（附全文）.” https://www.dhyj.gov.cn/nbz/Web/_F0_0_60CJBMNA924D656A365B4754B1.htm
  43. UNDP China. 2018. 跨性别者性别认同的法律承认——中国相关法律和政策评估报告. https://www.undp.org/zh/china/publications/kuaxingbiezhexingbierentongdefaluchengren-zhongguoxiangguanfaluhezhengcepinggubaogao
  44. Scholars at Risk. 2021. “2021-07-06 Various: WeChat Deletes Accounts of LGBT+ Student Groups.” https://www.scholarsatrisk.org/report/2021-07-06-various/
  45. 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/
  46. The Guardian. 2021. “Chinese University Appears to Ask for Lists of LGBTQ+ Students for ‘Investigation’.” https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/29/chinese-university-appears-to-ask-for-lists-of-lgbtq-students-for-investigation