Talk:Gender marker

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:36, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that sixteen countries fully recognize a non-binary gender marker for all individuals?
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Gerta Hüttl-Folter
  • Comment: Driveby nom for Trans Day of Visibility (31 March).

Created by Dog Oxide (talk). Number of QPQs required: 2. DYK is currently in unreviewed backlog mode and nominator has 374 past nominations.

Launchballer 15:16, 2 March 2026 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Article is new enough, long enough, well sourced, neutral and plagiarism free. Hook is interesting, but when I click on the supporting reference in the article, that says there are 17 countries that recognise a NB category. Clarification on this point would be good. As well, I think an additional QPQ is required, since DYK is in backlog mode. Lajmmoore (talk) 22:19, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

The QPQ is a double nom and counts as two. The discrepancy is Botswana. According to https://www.equaldex.com/region/botswana, the X marker is possible but no-one's done it. I've changed the article to that effect, and propose ALT1: ... that seventeen countries fully recognize a non-binary gender marker for all individuals? but perhaps @Dog Oxide: would like to opine.--Launchballer 00:27, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I also noticed that discrepancy as I was writing the article. While Equaldex does list Botswana as allowing non-binary gender markers, none of the sources linked for the most recent legal status mention the availability of non-binary gender marker options, only the ruling that allowed F to M or vice versa. Further research has yielded sources as late as 2020 and 2021 that state Botswana still doesn't have an option for a non-binary gender marker.

2021 source stating lack of availability for NB marker: South African Litigation Center

2026 report by Botswana-based news agency stating that not only are individuals still unable to get an X marker, but that generally it's unavailable for any trans person to update their gender marker despite the previous 2017 court ruling: The Voice - Botswana

Overall, it seems as though the law is ambiguous. Changing between M and F seems to be de-jure legal following that 2017 court ruling, however they remain de-facto unavailable. As such, without more recent sources such as testimonies from those who attempted the process, it seems the best conclusion that can be reached is that MtF/FtM are legally protected, while X is still not an option at all. That's why I put it in the lower section despite Equaldex's classification of "X-possible" DoO2 00:54, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I added a note to that effect.--Launchballer 20:04, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Great, thanks so much! Is there anything else I can do to improve the article for the time being? DoO2 05:03, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Don't think so. What this needs now is for Lajmmoore to approve this.--Launchballer 05:15, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Apologies, I forgot to put this on my watch list. Thanks, both, for the clarifications. All ok Lajmmoore (talk) 20:43, 11 March 2026 (UTC)