Abstract

Public transgender history in mainland China now has a substantial body of sources that can be read against one another. Hospital chronologies and clinical studies preserve changes in bodies, techniques, and medical institutions. Public-security and health regulations trace identity documents and administrative procedures. Labor disputes and personality-rights cases translate gender expression into judicial arguments. Community organizations transform recurring requests into hotlines, surveys, and services. Media and digital platforms continually reshape the labels available to public audiences. Community archives and web archives reconnect migrated pages to their historical provenance. The practical challenge for readers has therefore shifted toward source selection: which record should come first, and how should records produced by different institutions be connected?

This article organizes public sources from the 1980s through 2026 into seven reading paths: bodies and medicine; identity documents and administration; work and courts; organizations and mutual aid; public language; documentary regimes; and digital preservation. These paths are joined by an original framework, the historical conversion chain: lived event → institutional encounter → record production → community interpretation → public naming → rights/research citation → archival rediscovery. As one historical object moves through several record producers, each producer adds fields, timestamps, and visibility rules. A second method, source switching, asks the reader to move to a distinct documentary regime at every major node: pair hospital memory with regulation or clinical research, labor reporting with legal and advocacy records, surveys with service history, and live web pages with archived versions.

The map serves as durable research infrastructure rather than a publication index. It places GenderLibs’ recent work on vocabulary, legal gender recognition, the Guiyang Mr C case, advocacy infrastructure, historical labels and names, the Peking University Third Hospital public archive, and digital preservation inside a wider source network. Academic scholarship, policy documents, institutional pages, community records, journalism, and archival projects calibrate the evidentiary role of each path. The final sections offer four reading sequences for institutional history, community history, microhistory, and source verification, followed by a map of geographic, institutional, judicial, and preservation biases in the surviving public record.

Keywords: transgender history; mainland China; research map; medical history; legal gender recognition; community history; employment law; digital archives; historiography

1. Research question: moving from milestone lists to a source network

Public memory of transgender history in mainland China often begins with a small set of highly visible milestones: gender-reassignment surgery recorded by hospitals in the 1980s, Jin Xing’s media visibility in the 1990s, the 2002 public-security reply on changing the sex field in household registration, the 2009 medical technology standard, the 2017 national transgender survey, and the Guiyang employment cases between 2016 and 2018. Each milestone matters, while each also belongs to a distinct documentary system. Hospital timelines record institutional memory; news reports construct public narrative; public-security documents define administrative conditions; health regulations define clinical access; surveys turn experience into samples; judgments and advocacy archives organize legal issues and rights language (Chiang 2018; Dahlkemper et al. 2019; Beijing LGBT Center & Department of Sociology, Peking University 2017; Fappani 2024).

A research map therefore asks a more operational question than a chronology: when a reader starts from one famous node, how can they find the neighboring institutional, community, linguistic, and archival sources and understand what each source is capable of establishing? Hickman’s discussion of trans historiography emphasizes the ongoing relationship between historical subjects and analytic categories. Chiang’s work on sex, medicine, and gender in modern China places medical classification, state institutions, and subjectivity within longer transformations (Hickman 2021; Chiang 2018; Chiang 2021). Mainland China’s public source base is especially productive when read relationally: dates supply a skeleton, while record producers and institutional interfaces supply the connective tissue.

GenderLibs’ growing corpus already covers several of these interfaces. The “six documentary regimes” study separates clinical records, media, administration, community service, litigation and surveys, and digital archives. The advocacy-infrastructure history tracks organizational carriers, service interfaces, knowledge loops, and preservation layers. The legal-gender-recognition history follows certification, household registration, identity keys, document replacement, and downstream databases. The Mr C study reconstructs two judicial tracks. The historical label guide separates self-identification, media/community naming, medical-administrative language, and contemporary editorial description. The PUH3 archive guide distinguishes event time, record time, and revision time. The digital-preservation observatory models a source-survival stack. The present map turns those methods into a navigation layer that lets research questions determine the source path.

2. Method: the historical conversion chain and source switching

This map focuses on publicly accessible sources and on objects since the 1980s that can be supported by at least one institutional, media, judicial, community, scholarly, or archival record. The academic layer draws on queer and transgender studies in China and the Sinophone world, histories of sex and medicine, legal and social research, platform studies, and archival studies. The primary and institutional layer draws on public-security and health regulations, hospital pages, surveys, community records, journalism, litigation archives, and digital preservation projects. Bao’s work on digital video activism connects media practice to queer history and memory; Queer/Tongzhi China places activism, media, and social research in one field; Liu’s work on digital gender practices places first-person presentation and platform structure inside Chinese transgender experience (Bao 2015; Bao 2018; Bao 2019; Engebretsen, Schroeder & Bao 2015; Liu 2023).

The historical conversion chain describes how an experience becomes several kinds of record. A person seeking medical care may enter clinic documentation, technology standards, hospital research, and service information. A person changing identity documents may move through surgical certification, household registration, identity cards, and downstream databases. A workplace conflict may become an arbitration application, labor judgment, news story, personality-rights case, and advocacy archive. Each conversion adds fields and changes the scope of what becomes public. Conversion points are historiographically valuable because they explain why two records about the same event preserve different facts.

Source switching is the corresponding verification action. When an institutional history relies on a hospital’s own retrospective page, the reader moves to regulation or peer-reviewed research. When an administrative account relies on a policy summary, the reader moves to the original rule or a legal analysis. When litigation appears first through a headline, the reader moves to judicial and advocacy records. When organizational history begins with a project page, the reader moves to independent research, survey methodology, or partner records. When a web history starts from a live page, the reader records its original URL, archived versions, and retrieval time. Work on web historiography and web archives makes versions, selection, and preservation routes part of source criticism rather than background technical detail (Brügger 2018; Nielsen 2016).

Every historical object in this map can be described with six fields: event_time, record_time, record_producer, institutional_interface, source_role, and archive_route. Event time locates the historical occurrence. Record time locates the production or revision of evidence. Record producer identifies who held recording authority. Institutional interface identifies the procedure that received the experience. Source role distinguishes regulation, institutional memory, journalism, survey, scholarship, advocacy, and archive. Archive route tells a future reader how the object can be found again. Together these fields keep the history of an event and the history of its discoverability in the same research record.

3. Path one: bodies and medicine

Medical history supplies some of the earliest durable institutional records for public transgender history in mainland China. Historical pages from the Department of Plastic Surgery at Peking University Third Hospital preserve institutional memories of early gender-reassignment procedures and the development of the specialty. The Ministry of Health’s 2009 trial standard placed team qualifications, institutional conditions, patient criteria, and management requirements inside a national technical regime. Regulations from 2017 and 2022 show further changes in the vocabulary and governance of restricted medical technologies (PUH3 Plastic Surgery 2012a; PUH3 Plastic Surgery 2018; Ministry of Health 2009; National Health and Family Planning Commission 2017; National Health Commission 2022).

The first useful distinction on this path is between hospital history and state regulation. A hospital chronology answers how a team remembers techniques, people, and institutional development. A regulatory text answers the conditions under which institutions may perform a regulated technology. Their intersection can produce valuable version evidence. PUH3 pages published in different years record early surgical history with differing dates. Recording that discrepancy under record_time turns it into evidence about the revision of institutional memory.

A second move brings in clinical knowledge and service access. Dahlkemper and colleagues’ report on transgender health care in China, Deng’s discussion of DSM-5 gender dysphoria, and Wu and colleagues’ forensic clinical analysis of post-operative sex determination show multiple interfaces among diagnosis, treatment, post-operative assessment, and legal identity (Dahlkemper et al. 2019; Deng 2016; Wu et al. 2024). Amnesty International interviews and the 2017 national survey add access, family consent, cost, geography, and service information to the experience layer (Amnesty International 2019; Beijing LGBT Center & Department of Sociology, Peking University 2017).

A practical entry is GenderLibs’ annotated guide to the PUH3 transgender-medicine public archive. From there, move to national regulations, clinical studies, and community surveys. Read in four layers: how an institution remembers early events; how regulation defines technical access; how clinical research defines subjects and outcomes; and how surveys describe the conditions under which people actually obtain care. The combined path decomposes “medical change” into technical capacity, regulatory access, service availability, and experiential feedback.

4. Path two: identity documents and administrative infrastructure

The identity-document path places legal gender recognition inside state identity infrastructure. The 2002 reply from the Third Bureau of the Ministry of Public Security concerning changes to the sex item in household registration is a key public legal node. Later policy work and UNDP’s review of legal gender recognition connect household registration to identity cards, education records, and other administrative systems (Ministry of Public Security, Third Bureau 2002; UNDP 2018; Liu & Wu 2018).

This path is best read as a document cascade. Evidence is produced, entered into the household-registration master record, reflected in the identity key, and then propagated through replacement documents and downstream systems. Historical sources often describe a single segment of that cascade, so every source should be placed at its specific interface. An original public-security document anchors formal procedure. Legal scholarship explains the rights structure. Community guidance and lived accounts reveal friction when multiple systems update at different speeds.

UNDP’s 2014, 2016, and 2018 publications provide a useful longitudinal sequence: a national LGBT country report, a survey of social attitudes toward sexual orientation and gender identity/expression, and a dedicated legal-gender-recognition review. Together they show gender identity becoming a more explicit object of policy research across several institutions (UNDP 2014; UNDP 2016; UNDP 2018). Reading these reports beside public-security and health rules reveals distinct growth in administrative processability and rights legibility.

GenderLibs’ administrative history of legal gender recognition in mainland China is the site entry for this path. Continue with Project Trans’s legal-regulation chronology, use primary rules as the spine, and return to legal scholarship and policy reports for interpretation. A project can follow one data field through multiple documents or compare how one rule is interpreted across time. Both routes treat gender recognition as infrastructure maintained across interacting administrative systems.

5. Path three: work, courts, and the formation of rights language

The Guiyang Mr C case provides a source-dense microhistory of transgender employment and judicial language. Journalism from 2016 records arbitration, dismissal, and hearings; later reporting follows findings of unlawful termination; the advocacy archive preserved by Common Language traces the movement of gender identity and gender expression into a personality-rights judgment (China News Service 2016; The Paper 2016a; 2016b; 2016c; Common Language 2020). Fappani places the case within a broader account of transgender workers, law, and society in China (Fappani 2024).

The central lesson is that one workplace event can generate multiple judicial tracks. Labor law addresses contract termination, reasons for dismissal, wages, and compensation. Personality-rights and equal-employment litigation develops a different evidentiary task around gender identity, gender expression, dignity, and discrimination. Journalism foregrounds decisions, advocacy archives foreground rights language, and scholarship connects the case to wider legal structures. The source chain preserves all three functions.

GenderLibs’ study of the two judicial tracks in the Mr C case provides the entry. Read arbitration, labor litigation, personality-rights litigation, advocacy commentary, and later scholarship in sequence. At each stage record the issue, evidentiary burden, judicial language, and public circulation. The resulting microhistory shows rights language emerging through translation: a workplace conflict becomes labor-law facts, then a more explicit framework of gender identity and expression, then an object of advocacy and scholarship.

The judicial path also makes litigation visibility measurable. Cases that reach court and attract media attention produce dense dates, claims, and public documents. Everyday workplace experiences appear more often in surveys, hotline records, and personal narratives. A court case is therefore a high-document-density slice of employment history, while community and survey materials provide the broader social field.

6. Path four: organizations, mutual aid, and community infrastructure

Community history becomes especially legible when organizations convert recurring needs into services. The Beijing LGBT Center and partners helped release the 2017 national transgender survey. A national transgender hotline launched publicly in 2018. The Trans Counseling Group announced a “hotline 2.0” in 2022. ShanghaiPRIDE, China Development Brief, Mapping Chinese Feminism, and other public pages preserve collaborations, beneficiaries, and organizational positions (Beijing LGBT Center & Department of Sociology, Peking University 2017; China Development Brief 2017; China Development Brief 2018; Trans Counseling Group 2022; ShanghaiPRIDE 2018; Mapping Chinese Feminism 2022).

The research unit on this path is more useful when expanded from “organization” to service interface. One organization may provide counseling, hotlines, surveys, parent support, medical referrals, public education, and advocacy at different moments. The same service may migrate among organizations. Guo’s case study of the Beijing Tongzhi Center and Bai’s work on fatigue, failure, and fragile optimism in Chinese trans advocacy provide scholarly interpretations of organizational operation and activist experience (Guo 2018; Bai 2026).

GenderLibs’ history of transgender advocacy infrastructure separates organizational carriers, service interfaces, knowledge loops, and preservation layers. Readers can record four fields for each node: service provided, intended users, public knowledge produced, and preservation route. A hotline is simultaneously a service and a demand aggregator. A survey is research and the product of an organizational network. Parent support is relationship work and a source of public educational material.

This path also explains the social position of contemporary community labels such as 跨儿. When a label appears in medical, counseling, family-support, and community-service contexts, it travels through concrete service relationships. Language history and organizational history meet here: repeated public use by institutions, creators, and community members contributes to stability, while durable pages and archives make those uses historically recoverable.

7. Path five: public language, naming authority, and historical time

Historical labels carry the position of their record producer. Earlier clinical and administrative sources use terms such as 易性症, 变性, and 变性手术; mass media long relied on labels equivalent to “transsexual” or “person who changed sex”; 跨性别 became increasingly visible in community, research, international-organization, and public discourse during the 2010s; more specific community terms developed through medical, family-support, and platform settings (Deng 2016; UNDP 2016; Xu 2026; Liu 2023).

A productive method is a four-column attribution table: self-identification and public name; media/community naming; medical-administrative-legal terminology; contemporary editorial description. For every historical term, record speaker, year, institutional function, and referent. Historical vocabulary then becomes a timestamp of the source’s own world, while contemporary vocabulary supplies navigation. Huang’s analysis of “T” and transgender identity in Chinese lesbian culture and Chiang’s Sinophone trans history both show categories acquiring distinct trajectories across communities and regions (Huang 2015; Chiang 2021).

GenderLibs’ four-regime history of transgender vocabulary and four-column guide to historical labels and names work as a pair. The first explains how several naming institutions coexist; the second gives a method for attributing names inside concrete sources. Read them beside hospital records from the 1980s, the 2002 public-security reply, the 2017 survey, and contemporary community pages to see vocabulary and institutional change moving together.

Public-language history also records distribution capacity. Mass media, government documents, hospitals, nonprofit organizations, platform creators, and search indexes each distribute words at different scales. Research on Chinese internet visibility and digital gender practice shows how platform structure and self-presentation shape public expression (Guo 2020; Liu 2023). Search frequency is therefore a property of the present discovery environment; historical interpretation follows the term back to its producer and period.

8. Path six: documentary regimes and the shape of surviving history

Readers preparing to study earlier decades or local histories first need to understand why the surviving public record has its present shape. GenderLibs’ study of six documentary regimes distinguishes clinical records, news and moving images, administrative rules, community services, litigation and surveys, and digital archives. Each regime has a selection rule. Hospitals preserve care and institutional memory. Media select narratable public figures. Administrations record procedures. Organizations preserve services and projects. Courts record disputes that enter adjudication. Archives select from materials that survived long enough to collect.

This path turns source bias itself into historical evidence. Jin Xing has a rich, long-running media record because professional prominence generated repeated interviews and visual documentation. Beijing and Guiyang appear densely in institutional and legal sources because they contain visible medical, organizational, or litigation nodes. Early personal websites, small local groups, closed forums, and private correspondence have thinner public survival. The shape of public history therefore reflects social history and the distribution of recording technologies and institutional resources.

Bao’s work on digital video activism belongs centrally here. Documentary and networked video allowed queer communities to produce historical narratives through their own media practices, while circulation depended on platforms, screenings, and activist networks (Bao 2015; Bao 2018; Bao 2019). Web historiography adds another layer: today’s recoverable corpus was shaped by earlier linking structures, crawlers, and preservation choices (Brügger 2018). Together these perspectives place voice and survival inside one historical analysis.

This path gives future discoveries an immediate home. A local hospital memo, event poster, early forum capture, or personal collection can first be assigned to a documentary regime and then evaluated for the temporal, geographic, or institutional gap it fills. New sources add nodes and also recalibrate the representativeness of older nodes. A research map grows through both accumulation and correction.

9. Path seven: digital preservation and history’s second life

A large share of transgender public history since the 2000s is web-native. Government documents move between portal structures. Hospital pages are redesigned. Nonprofit organizations change platforms. News links redirect. Community accounts disappear. The digital-preservation path asks how historical objects can be rediscovered after these transitions. Project Trans preserves a legal-regulation index; the Trans and Gender-Diverse Archive preserves government, news, scholarly, and community materials; Sinophone digital-library and search projects provide thematic discovery; general web archives provide temporal captures of original URLs (Project Trans 2026; Trans and Gender-Diverse Archive 2026; Sinophone Transgender Chronology 2026; Project Polymorph 2026).

GenderLibs’ digital-preservation and discoverability observatory models a source-survival stack: origin → contemporaneous replica → community archive → general web archive → discovery index → scholarly citation. The present map connects that stack to the final stages of the historical conversion chain. A lived event becomes an institutional record, the record becomes research and public citation, and archives and indexes provide a second layer of discoverability. Preservation thus shapes the set of routes available to future historians reconstructing the earlier conversions.

A simple object-level practice works well on this path: save the original URL, title, publisher, page date, retrieval date, independent copies, archived captures, and current discovery terms. When a page moves, the object record retains the relationship between its old and new entries. This practice is especially valuable for policy, hospital, and community pages because both content and location may change as institutional websites are revised.

Community archives also create thematic description. Archival ethics research emphasizes relationships, responsibility, and representation, while scholarship on queer community archives shows how community preservation creates historical visibility for materials sparsely represented elsewhere (Caswell & Cifor 2016; Wakimoto, Bruce & Partridge 2013). For Chinese transgender archives, source role, sensitivity boundaries, and version history make preservation useful for both discovery and provenance.

10. Four reading sequences for four research goals

The first is an institutional-history sequence: medicine → administrative documents → courts → community services → preservation. It answers how professional and state institutions acquired procedures for processing transgender-related matters. Begin with 1980s hospital history, move through the 2002 public-security reply and the 2009/2022 medical rules, then the Mr C cases, national surveys and hotlines, and finally the archives preserving those objects. This sequence emphasizes the expansion and interaction of institutional interfaces.

The second is a community-history sequence: public language → services → surveys and advocacy → digital practice → archives. It answers how people acquired shared vocabulary, mutual-aid interfaces, and publicly citable experience. Start with vocabulary history, continue through advocacy infrastructure, surveys and hotlines, read research on digital gender practice, and then inspect the archives preserving dispersed materials (Liu 2023; Bai 2026; Beijing LGBT Center & Department of Sociology, Peking University 2017).

The third is a microhistory sequence: person/event → contemporaneous journalism → institutional rule → legal or medical record → community reinterpretation → later scholarship. Jin Xing’s media history, the Mr C employment case, and early surgical records can each be read this way. At every step the reader marks the record producer, keeping lived experience and later institutional interpretation on separate layers before connecting them.

The fourth is a source-verification sequence: current page → original publisher → contemporaneous independent source → primary institutional/legal text → later scholarship → web archive. It is designed for editors, researchers, and agents. When discovery begins with a search snippet or archived copy, the reader reconstructs provenance before deciding whether the source can establish a date, procedure, first-person account, public representation, or later influence. Web historiography treats this version and provenance awareness as a basic condition of historical work (Brügger 2018; Nielsen 2016).

These four sequences share one principle: research questions select the route. Institutional history privileges procedures, community history privileges services and shared language, microhistory privileges record conversion, and source verification privileges provenance. Mature projects move among all four.

11. Counterevidence and archival silences: mapping visibility bias

The first major calibration is institutional visibility bias. Large Beijing hospitals, national organizations, government portals, and high-profile media possess relatively durable public pages and archives, so they occupy dense zones in searchable history. Local hospitals, short-lived groups, family support networks, and experiences outside formal procedures have thinner public records. This distribution identifies established source clusters and points toward local and personal histories that deserve further collection.

The second is judicial visibility bias. Arbitration and litigation produce dated claims and public issues, while ordinary workplace experiences more often enter surveys, counseling records, and first-person narratives. The Mr C case is especially strong evidence for the formation of judicial language. National surveys and organizational services are stronger for describing a broader range of experience. Their different scales are complementary.

The third is digital-preservation bias. Government portals, large news sites, and community-prioritized materials are more likely to remain discoverable than early personal pages, closed chats, image-heavy forums, and deleted accounts. Archival scholarship treats collection rules and technical constraints as part of archival formation (Brügger 2018; Caswell & Cifor 2016). Recording a search gap as metadata turns absence into a concrete target for later work on a region, year, or medium.

The fourth is conceptual visibility bias. Contemporary readers tend to search with 跨性别, while earlier documents may use 易性症, 变性, or 性别重置. A single contemporary query therefore retrieves only a subset of the historical vocabulary field. Historical-label guides and thematic archives bridge periods by preserving original wording while adding contemporary subject terms.

Together these biases define the map’s scope as publicly reconstructable transgender history in mainland China. Its evidentiary strength lies in showing how surviving public sources connect and where document density remains low. Local archives, personal collections, oral histories, and newly opened institutional materials can continue to alter the map.

12. Original synthesis: a conversion–preservation map

The seven paths can be compressed into two intersecting axes. The horizontal axis is historical conversion: embodied experience, administrative applications, workplace events, organizational needs, and language use enter institutions and produce clinical records, policies, judgments, surveys, media, and service documents. The vertical axis is preservation and rediscovery: those records acquire different lifespans through republication, scholarly citation, community archiving, web crawling, and search indexing.

At their intersection, six questions assess a historical node: who experienced the event; which institution recorded it first; which fields that record preserved; how a second independent documentary regime described the same object; how later community or scholarly work interpreted it; and which archives or indexes make it discoverable today. This six-question template combines the historical conversion chain with source switching in a reproducible workflow.

Take the 2017 national survey. The event layer consists of the lives of transgender and gender-nonconforming respondents. Organizational and academic cooperation converts experience into questionnaire data. Publication pages and regional copies move the report into public circulation. Later legal, medical, and social research cite the statistics. Community digital archives provide new entrances as original web structures change (Beijing LGBT Center & Department of Sociology, Peking University 2017; China Development Brief 2017). One historical object passes through several conversions, each creating another citable form.

Take the 2009 medical standard. A Ministry of Health document anchors policy identity. Hospitals and researchers interpret technical criteria in clinical practice. Project Trans and community archives preserve legal discovery routes. Web archives and search indexes extend discoverability (Ministry of Health 2009; Project Trans 2026). A present-day reader moving from a search result to the original rule and then to hospital history and clinical research traverses the conversion chain in reverse.

The new contribution of this map is therefore route selection. Recent studies each examine one object or method in depth; this topic hub turns them into a research decision system. Researching bodies begins with the medical path. Researching state infrastructure begins with documents. Researching rights begins with courts. Researching community formation begins with organizations. Researching representation begins with language. Researching the shape of evidence begins with documentary regimes. Researching long-term reconstructability begins with preservation. Every path requires at least one source switch, so the hub functions as a historiographical method and navigational layer.

Conclusion

Public transgender history in mainland China now forms a multi-institutional source network. Hospitals, public-security and health agencies, courts, news organizations, community groups, researchers, digital platforms, and archives record bodies, procedures, disputes, services, language, and preservation through distinct temporal scales and selection rules. Reading across those regimes reconstructs historical process with greater precision than a single sequence of milestones.

This map offers seven reading paths—medicine; identity documents; work and courts; organizations; public language; documentary regimes; and digital preservation—and connects them through a historical conversion chain that follows experience into records, public knowledge, rights evidence, and archival objects. Source switching requires each major node to be checked through a second independent documentary regime. Together the two methods turn topical reading into a source workflow.

The most valuable future expansions are already visible in the map’s sparse zones: medical and press materials before the 1980s, hospitals and organizational histories outside Beijing, early forums and personal homepages, oral histories of families and workplaces, regional variation in policy implementation, and new versions created by platform migration in the 2020s. Every new source can be recorded with event time, record time, producer, institutional interface, source role, and preservation route before being attached to the appropriate path.

A research map stays alive by remaining revisable. It organizes established knowledge into entrances, then allows newly recovered sources to alter routes, fill gaps, and recalibrate earlier interpretations. Mainland China’s public transgender history now has a practical reading infrastructure: start from a node, follow institutional relations, switch evidentiary tracks at key points, and preserve provenance for the next reader.

References

  1. 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/
  2. Bao, Hongwei. 2015. “Digital Video Activism: Narrating History and Memory in Queer China, ‘Comrade’ China.” In Queer/Tongzhi China: New Perspectives on Research, Activism and Media Cultures. https://nottingham-repository.worktribe.com/output/1105849/
  3. Bao, Hongwei. 2018. “From ‘Celluloid Comrades’ to ‘Digital Video Activism’: Queer Filmmaking in Postsocialist China.” https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/49485/
  4. Bao, Hongwei. 2019. “Queer Comrades: Digital Video Documentary and LGBTQ Health Activism in China.” In Film and the Chinese Medical Humanities. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/oa-edit/10.4324/9780429507465-17/
  5. 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/
  6. Brügger, Niels. 2018. The Archived Web: Doing History in the Digital Age. MIT Press.
  7. Chiang, Howard. 2018. After Eunuchs: Science, Medicine, and the Transformation of Sex in Modern China. Columbia University Press.
  8. Chiang, Howard. 2021. Transtopia in the Sinophone Pacific. Columbia University Press. https://howardchiang.faculty.eastasian.ucsb.edu/publications/books/
  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. Deng, Mingyu. 2016. “性别苦恼的临床研究新进展（DSM-5新标准）.” 中国健康心理学杂志. https://digital.transchinese.org/学术文献/医学/性别苦恼的临床研究新进展DSM-5_新标准.pdf
  11. 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
  12. Fappani, Valentina. 2024. “The Protection of Transgender Workers in China: Between Law and Society.” Rivista di Diritto dell’Asia Orientale. https://edizionicafoscari.it/media/pdf/article/rivista-di-diritto-dellasia-orientale/2024/1/art-10.30687-RIDAO-4713-223X-2024-01-003.pdf
  13. Guo, Lifu. 2018. “Tongzhi Solidarity under Chinese Authoritarian Government: A Case Study of the Beijing Tongzhi Center.” https://repository.dl.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp/record/49786/
  14. Guo, Shaohua. 2020. The Evolution of the Chinese Internet: Creative Visibility in the Digital Public. Stanford University Press. https://www.sup.org/books/asian-studies/evolution-chinese-internet
  15. 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
  16. Huang, Ana. 2015. “On the Surface: ‘T’ and Transgender Identity in Chinese Lesbian Culture.” In Queer/Tongzhi China. https://cnlgbtdata.com/files/uploads/2024/06/Queer_Tongzhi_China.pdf#page=126
  17. 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
  18. Liu, Sha. 2023. Performative Authenticity: Chinese Transgender People’s Digital Gender Practices. PhD thesis, London School of Economics. https://etheses.lse.ac.uk/4608/
  19. 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
  20. Nielsen, Janne. 2016. Using Web Archives in Research: An Introduction. NetLab.
  21. Shi, Z. 2022. “An Exploration of Transgender Individuals’ Identity Experiences in the Chinese Context.” https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3ca0/8047554f49ca7297f715cd3247534782c314.pdf
  22. Wu, Yujiao, Yueqin Zhou, Yiwen Shen, and Jieqing Jiang. 2024. “39例性别重置术后法医临床性别鉴定案例分析.” 法医学杂志. https://digital.transchinese.org/学术文献/医学/39例性别重置术后法医临床性别鉴定案例分析.pdf
  23. Xu, Z. 2026. “Kuaxingbie and Transgender in the Age of Digital Platforms.” In Gender and Digital Media. https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.12657/112150/9781040515600.pdf
  24. Bai, Tianyi. 2026. “No-One Signed Up: Fatigue, Failure, and Fragile Optimism in Chinese Trans Advocacy.” https://doi.org/10.22459/mic.11.01.2026.13
  25. Beitong Culture. 2021. “2021年全国跨性别健康调研.” https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1RB4y1c7db/
  26. Peking University Third Hospital, Department of Plastic Surgery. 2012a. “北医三院整形外科60年画册附录.” https://www.sar.com.cn/xinwen/syyydt/4132.html
  27. Peking University Third Hospital, Department of Plastic Surgery. 2012b. “60年专题.” https://www.sar.com.cn/zt60/
  28. Peking University Third Hospital, Department of Plastic Surgery. 2018. “易性症综合治疗门诊.” https://www.puh3.net.cn/zxwk/info/1005/1041.htm
  29. Peking University Third Hospital, Department of Plastic Surgery. 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
  30. Ministry of Public Security, Third Bureau. 2002. “关于公民实施变性手术后变更户口登记性别项目有关问题的批复（公治〔2002〕131号）.” https://project-trans.org/china-legal/spec/2002-09-04/mps-2002-131/
  31. Ministry of Health. 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/wjw/gfxwj/200911/6341a0f92cad4f09acfae1e5d5b56477.shtml
  32. National Health and Family Planning Commission. 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://wjw.shanxi.gov.cn/tzgg/zcwj/202203/t20220311_5330105.shtml
  33. National Health Commission. 2022. “国家限制类技术目录和临床应用管理规范（2022年版）.” https://www.nhc.gov.cn/yzygj/c100068/202204/2655831f6f444b00b3e50604e67531f5.shtml
  34. Project Trans. 2026. “中国大陆跨性别相关法律法规变迁.” https://project-trans.org/china-legal/
  35. UNDP. 2014. Being LGBT in Asia: China Country Report. https://www.undp.org/china/publications/being-lgbt-asia-china-country-report
  36. UNDP. 2016. Being LGBTI in China: A National Survey on Social Attitudes towards Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Gender Expression. https://www.undp.org/china/publications/being-lgbti-china
  37. 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
  38. 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
  39. China Development Brief. 2018. “全国跨性别热线正式上线啦！” https://www.chinadevelopmentbrief.org.cn/news/detail/19107.html
  40. China Development Brief. 2026. “机构简介：北京同志中心.” https://www.chinadevelopmentbrief.org.cn/company/detail/532.html
  41. Trans Counseling Group. 2022. “全国跨性别热线2.0上线啦！” https://kuaerxinli.org/社群资源/1335
  42. Mapping Chinese Feminism. 2022. “北京同志中心.” https://mappingchinesefeminism.com/organizations/北京同志中心/
  43. ShanghaiPRIDE. 2018. “骄傲节支持：2018年跨儿公益组织.” https://shpride.com/beneficiaries2018/
  44. China News Service. 2011a. “金星谈变性：感谢老天给我身材，给我做女人的条件.” https://www.chinanews.com.cn/yl/2011/10-14/3388986.shtml
  45. China News Service. 2011b. “金星暂别《舞林大会》 变性手术纪录片曝光.” https://www.chinanews.com.cn/yl/2011/10-11/3380072.shtml
  46. China News Service. 2016. “‘女扮男装’员工被开除 当事人申请仲裁已获立案.” https://www.chinanews.com.cn/m/sh/2016/03-16/7799284.shtml
  47. The Paper. 2016a. “贵阳跨性别就业歧视案开庭，公司辩称辞退该员工因不穿工装.” https://m.thepaper.cn/newsDetail_forward_1454923
  48. The Paper. 2016b. “贵阳跨性别就业歧视案仲裁结果出炉，当事人不满意将起诉.” https://www.thepaper.cn/newsDetail_forward_1467450
  49. The Paper. 2016c. “贵阳跨性别就业歧视案宣判：被告属违法辞退，但不认定是歧视.” https://www.thepaper.cn/newsDetail_forward_1590861
  50. Trans and Gender-Diverse Archive. 2026. “跨性别组织或机构.” https://digital.transchinese.org/社群及NGO文件/其他组织文件/跨性别组织或机构_page/
  51. Sinophone Transgender Chronology. 2026. “《他·她·TA：跨性别华语编年录》.” https://project-polymorph.github.io/trans-history/
  52. Project Polymorph. 2026. 跨性别与多元性别网页档案馆. https://github.com/project-polymorph/content_archive