This character is used in hundreds of placenames in Shanxi(山西),Shannxi（陕西）,Guangdong（广东） Province. Please see the second evidence of this character ,it's just one page of the book 《山西省行政区划与自然村标准地名手册·雁北地区》but it contains 6 ⿰土窊. Considering all of them are written as ⿰土窊 and ⿰土窊 and U+3EDC6 are usually considered different characters by normal people, it is really bad to unify ⿰土窊 to 𾷆 (U+3EDC6).

It is a variant of 萼, non-congnate with 㠋 (U+380B). The evidence is clear enough and the book is compiled by government, so it should be encoeded. By the way, many unencoded characters are replaced by common characters in National Database for Geographical Names of China（中国·国家地名信息库） and county annals.

The shape is both clear and resonable.

江西省公安厅一处 编纂：《江西方言土语汇集》第六册，1991年9月，P42

中国测绘科学研究院：地名库外字代码对照表，2004年



However, I checked 1:50000 topographic map （1972） of Liquan County, Shannxi Province, the name of the village is 山底村. So it should be used in another place name which I don't know.
For encoding, I think the evidence is enough.

《建宁县地名录》has pronounciation.

安化县人民政府：湖南省安化县地名录，1983年3月，P54

The pronounciation of ⿰土鸟 is niao3, which is resonable. Placenames can change over time.

中国测绘科学研究院：地名库外字代码对照表，2000年11月
This is definately a variant of U+3094E 𰥎. Should we unify them or encode them seperately?

李如龙：地名与语言学论集，福州：福建省地图出版社，1993年8月，P146

I think IRG encode not only characters used or useful for one place, but also characters used in books which can be schoolars' references. The shape in the evidence is clear enough, what's more, 山 and 宀 can be written as each other when used on the head of a character, so the shape is reasonalbe. So I don't think it should be withdrawed. Rejecting this character will only lead to a later resubmition.

李如龙：地名与语言学论集，福州：福建省地图出版社，1993年8月，P145

It is a print error. I will find another good evidence for the character and come back again.

贵阳市花溪区地方志办公室：贵阳市花溪区志，贵阳：贵州人民出版社，2007年8月，P71

江西省公安厅一处：江西方言土语汇集 第八册，1992年5月，P17

宜兴县地名委员会：江苏省宜兴县地名录，1983年1月，P125

崔恒昇：中国古今地理通名汇释，合肥：黄山书社，2003年6月，P405

中国测绘科学研究院：地名库外字代码对照表

邵阳县人民政府：湖南省邵阳县地名录，1984年12月，P236

SJT 11239-2001 信息技术 信息交换用字符集 第八辅助集

SJT 11239-2001 信息技术 信息交换用字符集 第八辅助集

江西省公安厅一处：江西方言土语汇集 第五册，1991年3月，P213

It is unclear that if the is a dot here.

The glyph on the right bottom seems to be the corruption of 乑（U+4E51）,not 求.

The glyph is not very clear. According to the context and the evidences, it is hard to decide whether the vertical stroke should be out of the bottom bar or be out of the upper bar. So I suggest we pending this character for further investigation.

According to the second evidence, the character is identical to 𤥖 (U+24956). So the character in the first evidence may be a one case error.

The two evidences show different glyph. More evidences needed to confirm the glyph.

Since ⿺𠃊㐅 and ⿺𠃊人 can't be unified, more evidences are needed to confirm the glyph.

According to the second evidence, there seems to be a bar under the 艹. More evidences needed to confirm the glyph.

The evidence is unclear to decide the glyph is ⿰貝蹙 or ⿰貝⿱戚𤴓.

Traditional form of this character seen in 《古今地名大辞典》.

After discussing with some of my "transgender" friends, they all don't like to be described as ⿰㐅也. Some of them even think 㐅 indicates they are not persons and it comes out from some self moving people who are not belong to their group.