Talk:Legal recognition of non-binary gender

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Legal recognition of non-binary gender. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160914152729/http://oii.org.au/wp-content/uploads/key/Intersex-Stories-Statistics-Australia.pdf to http://oii.org.au/wp-content/uploads/key/Intersex-Stories-Statistics-Australia.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131110023525/http://www.bodieslikeours.org/pdf/xmarks.pdf to http://www.bodieslikeours.org/pdf/xmarks.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140108085208/http://positiveimpactmagazine.com/a-second-look-at-pakistans-third-gender/ to http://positiveimpactmagazine.com/a-second-look-at-pakistans-third-gender/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:47, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Legal recognition of non-binary gender. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111019035814/https://www.passports.gov.au/web/sexgenderapplicants.aspx to https://www.passports.gov.au/web/sexgenderapplicants.aspx
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://test.hsa.edu.pk/journal/issue-march2012vol2no1/Abdullah%20MA.OA.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141117055249/http://web.hku.hk/~sjwinter/TransgenderASIA/paper_language_and_identity.htm to http://web.hku.hk/~sjwinter/TransgenderASIA/paper_language_and_identity.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141117055249/http://web.hku.hk/~sjwinter/TransgenderASIA/paper_language_and_identity.htm to http://web.hku.hk/~sjwinter/TransgenderASIA/paper_language_and_identity.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Pakistan, "recognition", 2003 vs. 2009

I thought about reverting this edit, which had an edit summary saying, "Pakistan: earliest Legal recognition of third sex/gender appears to be 2003. Removed inaccurate words about developments in 2009", but decided not to revert it. The edit removed words which it claimed without support to be inaccurate, and removed the source cite which supported the removed words. I see that the unsupported assertion re 2003 in the edit summary is not mentioned in the article. The relevant 2009 events are covered elsewhere in the Pakistan section. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:08, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Legal recognition in Maine

Looks like it's time to add Maine to the list: http://www.maine.gov/sos/news/2018/genderdesignationdlid.html

Maybe time to start making a map?

-- 2620:15C:183:202:BA56:C9C:9A25:8941 (talk) 17:54, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

United States section

We currently claim that Oregon was the first state to support non-binary gender designations on driver's licenses, but actually it was Arkansas (which we don't mention at all).[1][2] Kaldari (talk) 01:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I added a new paragraph about Arkansas. Kaldari (talk) 02:28, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Can someone please correct the date for colorado recognition, today's date being 18 Nov, how can the date of recognition be 30 Nov? Thanks 84.101.48.162 (talk) 17:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

United States - convert to table?

With so many US states adding legal recognition, taking effect on different dates, with state IDs and/or birth certificates affected, it might be time to make a table to convey this information in a way that makes verification and comparison simpler (e.g. that allows people to see what their state's policy is without reading the entire section). --Jamie7687 (talk) 19:32, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Convert to summary table, move details to a separate page? Ryancdotorg (talk) 00:32, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Genderqueer

Category:Genderqueer has been nominated for renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page.

Thought this was relevant to this page and yes I am the nominator. --Devin Kira Murphy (talk) 03:50, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Germany section

Under the section about Germany, somewhat vague language is used ("is thought to be") that suggests stipulation or the lack of information from a source. Maybe this could be reworded in order to provide a more neutral and factual standpoint. EmilyVisco (talk) 04:44, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, I think someone was afraid to be clearer because they didn't want to be accused of being POV. Germany actually did introduce an indeterminate category in 2013 (and thereby was the first European country to have done so), but in the beginning, there was quite some disinformation about what the change actually meant, some people - erroneously - pretending that this was only about postponing the mention in the register as long as the gender wasn't clear. But it had been said in parliament at the occasion of the vote that this could be a life-long status and the courts have subsequently applied it in this way. That being said, I'm not going to be the one who will change the sentence, it's not worth a fight. If you're dauntless enough to do it, good luck... Sigur (talk) 23:29, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Portugal

The map lists Portugal in the "Non-binary / third gender option available as voluntary opt-in" category, yet the country has no section in the article, nor was I able to find any evidence that that is the case.

Have I misunderstood what that label means? If so, does anyone have any sources we can quote to create a section for Portugal in the article?

Alternatively, should the map be rectified? JNat megaman (talk) 09:25, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Portugal has no non-binary gender recognition

As the title says, Portugal has no non-binary binary gender recognition. The image presenting the areas with such recognition highlights Portugal. This is just not true. Please change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttvwiki (talk • contribs) 17:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Ttvwiki. If you could provide Reliable sources for this information, I will gladly change the map. Alternatively, since anyone can edit Wikipedia, feel free to change the map yourself if you want (provided you have sources backing up your claim). ¡Ayvind! (talk) 01:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Brazil

https://g1.globo.com/sc/santa-catarina/noticia/2021/04/12/justica-de-sc-reconhece-direito-de-pessoa-se-declarar-com-genero-neutro.ghtml Nosferattus (talk) 06:16, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@Laura Trump@Nosferattus I added it in the article along with other sources, mentioning in the →Brazil subsection. Tazuco (talk) 03:39, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

In fact, many judges and courts in Brazil have authorized non-binaries to change their legal sex to "unspecified". However, there is no national rule, the jurisprudence is still pacifying Laura Trump (talk) 16:24, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't know how to change the non-binary map. Please, I would like someone with more experience to make the appropriate changes to reflect the current legal situation in Brazil. Laura Trump (talk) 00:11, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

The State of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil, now recognizes the gender of non-binary people. Please, whoever can make the necessary changes to the map Laura Trump (talk) 15:24, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

wheres the indonesia subject for the non binary law?

I don't know please explain to us! don't let them carried away! why it just India alone not Indonesia? 125.166.91.114 (talk) 10:45, 17 May 2021 (UTC) I want to see that Indonesia could legalize nonbinary law!

Intersex on this

I have been seeing sources like this and this have mentioned intersex activists aren’t really in support of a third sex category.CycoMa (talk) 20:46, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

April 27, 2022. Costa Rica now allowing "X" Gender mark?

https://twitter.com/Jotavargascr/status/1519403719892295687 Seems like an LGBT Commissioner in Costa Rica today became the first person in the country to receive an "X" Gender mark in their passport. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CostarricenseMarxista (talk • contribs) 02:24, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

https://www.nacion.com/el-pais/servicios/personas-no-binarias-pueden-registrarse-como/RWDCD4V3TFDIHIJQKRFPCYUG54/story/

News came out and this is now official in the country. Information for Costa Rica needs to be updated. CostarricenseMarxista (talk) 00:38, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

/* Federal */ Incomplete?

I feel like the “United States/Federal” section is a bit misleading.

Everyone needs a Social Security entry, for employment, taxes, etc. It doesn’t offer any accommodation for non-binary gender at this time (RM 10212.200 §B (2)(i)(b))) — even when the birth certificate has an “X” marker, the Social Security department demands a binary sex indicator; even just omitting or removing that data field isn't allowed!

The Social Security Card is the ID to which many states (e.g. Alabama) actually defer as an authority for the data on their own ID cards. By contrast, passports are an optional amenity for the subset of citizens who engage in international travel. Why are they being spotlighted, and why is there zero mention of the Social Security card situation? 50.4.94.103 (talk) 00:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Social Security cards don't list a sex or gender. Whatever database they use is probably ancient and difficult to change. Alabama does not appear to have any requirement that sex/gender on driver's licenses (which are also an optional amenity for the subset of citizens who drive) to match the Social Security Administration's database, though they do seem to require the name to match. Ryancdotorg (talk) 23:37, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Also, the ATF allows non-binary designation when applying for a license...

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/form/form-7-7-cr-application-federal-firearms-license-atf-form-531012531016/download Ryancdotorg (talk) 00:27, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

A firearm license and passport are both optional, luxury instruments. It seems highly misleading to use the flexibility of these optional, luxury instruments as being a basis for such a positive blurb on the United States when over half its member states don't allow an “X” marker on the ID actually used for general identification. 24.192.101.237 (talk) 16:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I believe the existing top-level statement about the US, and the corresponding map, communicate that many US states do not yet recognize non-binary gender. A sentence or two about the Social Security database could be a reasonable addition under the "Federal" section, though, paraphrasing or quoting sources like [3][4][5] Jamie7687 (talk) 19:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

A US passport card costs $30, can have sex listed as "X", and is valid photo ID everywhere in the US. This is similar in price to state ID cards.

That aside, I think a breakdown of recognition on a population basis would be particularly interesting. Ryancdotorg (talk) 11:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 11 October 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Elli (talk | contribs) 19:45, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

---

Legal recognition of non-binary gender → Legal recognition of non-binary people – People should not be defined by the gender that they were born with, and should be recognized as equal to each other, not because of their gender, but because they are humans.

This is crucial for equality, since binary people are legally recognized by default and don't have to wait for any legislation for their recognition as humans.

A research paper published in the International Journal of Gender, Sexuality and Law states that:

"Legal recognition of non-binary people signals an expanded understanding of recognisable gender identities, but requires situating oneself within a bureaucratic framework."

where "requires situating oneself within a bureaucratic framework" means requirement to appear in a court of law just for legal recognition of one's gender, which is required for non-binary people since no universal or international legislation has been passed for them to be recognized as people by default, unlike binary people.

“Change can never be ‘complete’”: the legal right to self-identification and incongruous bodies

References

— CrafterNova ^{[ TALK ] [ CONT ]} 15:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:CONSISTENT for consistency with the main article located at Non-binary gender. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:55, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Rreagan007: The same thing can be said for binary people, for whom there is not even a redirect, because "they are people by default", but, according to such logic, non-binary people have to "prove themselves" as people just because "birth rates of non-binary people are low and their populations are rare".

  If WP:CONSISTENT has to be followed, then there have to be corresponding articles consistent with each other:

  • Binary people should be created as a standalone article
  • Non-binary gender should also be moved to non-binary people
  • Gender non-binary should also be a standalone article, as compared with its corresponding article gender binary.

  — CrafterNova ^{[ TALK ] [ CONT ]} 16:48, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence that anyone is questioning whether or not non-binary individuals are people. You seem to be advocating this wording change in an effort to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:14, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Many, especially trolls and fascists, don't understand that legality and morality are very different things, and that legality should conform to objective moral standards. I understand that proposing this move won't influence or speed any legislation process, but these problems still require discussion.

Since all articles should be named on basis of information from reliable sources, and legislations regarding legal recognition of non-binary people have yet to be passed, we need to wait until a law specifically states that non-binary people should be recognized as equal to all people by the fact they are humans, not because of their gender, and should not be defined by their gender.

Until then, I agree with the status quo. — CrafterNova ^{[ TALK ] [ CONT ]} 19:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm confused what your point is. One of the main objectives of legal recognition is to list something other than Male or Female on legal identification documents. (Though some argue for leaving gender/sex markers off of all such documents entirely.) Having a nonbinary marker doesn't necessarily define a nonbinary person entirely by their gender, but it does differentiate us from binary people for legal purposes. Funcrunch (talk) 19:56, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Legislators who aim to ensure such legal recognition should understand the differences between sex and gender, in order to:

• Strictly prohibit "othering" of non-binary, intersex people and LGBTQ+ people in all situations, including legal matters
• Legally declare whether someone is a binary man or a binary woman, non-binary man or non-binary woman, intersex man or intersex woman, agender and/or intersex, transgender, queer, etc. for the purpose of ensuring gender-specific and sex-specific rights
• Make it clear that man, woman, and non-binary are genders, whereas male, female, and in a sense, intersex, are sexes (since intersex people are not entirely male or entirely female, according to United Nations' OHCHR and PubMed Central)

Removing gender and sex markers off of all such documents entirely would be counterproductive to implementation of laws or future legislations that protect or will protect human rights such as:

• Gender-specific rights
  • Right to HRT for sex transition
  • Right to sex reassignment surgery
• Sex-specific rights
  • Abortion rights and right to affordable personal hygiene products such as tampons, menstrual pads having low taxes (for all females, including women, pre-operative trans men, post-operative trans women, non-binary people who female gonads and genitals; intersex people are not females, but they can also get pregnant if they have a uterus, fallopian tubes, vagina, and a cervix)
  • Reproductive healthcare rights

I know that sex and gender can't define any individual, but unfortunately, many people do not understand this simple fact, and this article's title implies the contrary, besides many other articles. — CrafterNova ^{[ TALK ] [ CONT ]} 21:30, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. We are already recognized as people (except by certain trolls and extremists). What we lack is widespread legal recognition of our genders (or lack thereof, for agender folks like myself). Funcrunch (talk) 18:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

  What about legal recognition of agender people? Without the word "people", it would become just "legal recognition of agender", which is WP:VAGUE and highly absurd.

  Per WP:CONSISTENT, if we really want consistency in naming of articles, then legal recognition of agender people should also be created as a standalone article, according to notability of relevant legislations, if they are enacted by any government.

  Since the information that appears and remains on Wikipedia depends on what actually happens in real life, and whether such events are notable or not, it is the need of the hour for the Wikimedia movement to globally support all LGBTQ+ movements, and encourage more LGBTQ+ people to be legislators, researchers, Wikipedia editors, and all relevant occupations. — CrafterNova ^{[ TALK ] [ CONT ]} 08:14, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with Funcrunch, non-binary people are already recognized as people. But I wouldn't oppose if the reason was to match the pattern of Legal recognition of intersex people.

  While we are commenting here, WP:NOUN rules titles so Non-binary gender would be preferred as Non-binarity instead of Non-binary people I guess. Just like fr:Non-binarité. However, in English it's not known a noun for non-binariness other than an uncommon neologistic syntagma. I wouldn't oppose creating other articles for the peoples. Formigable (talk) 21:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Already legally recognised as people. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:49, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.