Well, I do agree that J-20 compared to F-22 may have a "greater allowance" for air to ground weapons than F-22 due to its potentially larger weapons bay, though how much larger its weapons bay actually is vs F-22 is another matter.
I also do not believe the chin mounted EOIRST on J-20 is necessarily indicative of an A2G role -- for instance, the YF-23 and F-22 both were intended to have an EOIRST potentially mounted on their chins, and both were of course intended to have primary A2A roles. Similarly, I believe the F-14's chin mounted AN/AAS-42 was primarily for A2A roles as well.
I think it also makes sense for a stealthy air to air fighter to have an EOIRST mounted on its chin, if there is insufficient space on the dorsal side of the nose (such as due to a slanted radome bulkhead and other sensors or machinery occupying the dorsal side making a stealthy EOIRST fairing impractical to fit) -- and given such a fighter would likely spend most of its time at high altitudes, having an EOIRST which has look down capabilities may be sensible. J-20's EOIRST would have an A2G role if it were confirmed to have a laser designator and laser spot tracking capability, which I think are key prerequisites for A2G strike duties for such a sensor fairing.
I also wouldn't say F-35 is a bad strike aircraft -- I think it is perfectly fine, given the requirements it was designed for. However I don't think the requirements of F-35 would necessarily be consistent with Chinese military aviation requirements.
I'd agree with this -- though I would admit that it is possible F-22 may not be as maneuverable as F-22 in certain flight regimes or conditions to a degree. However the key point is that in terms of role and ACM it probably is meant to be competitive with other air superiority fighter aircraft.
