Talk:Gender marker

• ... 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).

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

Policy compliance:

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

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)