Question: If there is a policy put into place to revoke passports but it cannot be enforced due to lack of data about which passports have had a gender marker changed, would this resolve yes?

I believe there’s an extremely good chance (>80%) that existing IT systems don’t actually track who has had their gender marker changed.

@EmilyConn Yes, it would count. Enforceability does not matter to the resolution.

I believe this will happen by making passports unrenewable, not through explicit revocation, so I made a different market to track that.

@KimberlyWilberLIgt Note: my market is currently undervalued compared to this one.

Lol, bet NO a little while back and sold it for profit. Now trying to get my damn passport as fast as possible, wonderful. OP was right, it would be much easier to add a simple "do not travel" restriction and force ppl to get new ones, that could be done by executive order. stupid cheeto man.

You mean revoking passports entirely?? At first I assumed this was about forms of ID change, that seems more plausible. Nobody's gunning for it, and it would be really hard to implement. I can see some kind of wishy-washy 'fraud prevention' maybe, but outright revoking? To be revoked would mean that there's some kind of national transgender registry, they'd have to go through birth certificate records and cross check changes going back years and years. There are probably way more corrected clerical errors and name changes as there are trans people. AFAIK nobody's keeping records of gender change specifically. (the texas attorney general tried this with drivers licenses, it didn't work) https://www.texastribune.org/2022/12/14/ken-paxton-transgender-texas-data/

If someone has evidence to the contrary, I'd really like to know 😅

For purposes of this market I just mean that they make the rule, not that they are effective at enforcing it.

Gotcha! Thanks for making this market it is important to have an accurate prediction! Ok I see what you're getting at now, that it could play out like driver's licenses? Some red states have disallowed gender marker changes but allowed licenses to remain valid until renewal. Florida just went ahead and classified any gender marker update as criminal fraud, and its unclear how this works if you're getting your licence for the first time, or have changed other ID documents, making the DMV a more interesting experience to say the least. https://www.politifact.com/article/2024/feb/12/what-floridas-drivers-license-policy-change-means/

If it is true as you say that bureaucrats would be able to revoke documents on the basis of fraud, then yeah that's a little worrying.

^ any takers?

there's something called adverse selection here

or someone really wants to hedge

could you explain in what way this is adverse selection, im not following

though im reconsidering trying to tax bullshit in this context it sounds rude. Is this what you meant

you wouldn't advertise a giant limit order unless you think you are right by a lot

I’m willing to lose that if someone knows me to be wrong, too. Seems like a valuable thing someone would successfully predict. But yeah I think people are likely to vastly overestimate some odds involved

Thinking more of this market:

See my response on that one too. If I had 10,000 mana this would be an easy bet for me.

from a quick review of the law, there isn't really anything in the law allowing some bureaucrat to revoke a passport arbitrarily.

Yeah i think you’re wrong in that market but moreso because the base rates seem so tiny than because I am particularly well informed about the particular issue

@nikki i see several vehicles that could be used to revoke passports in those screenshots. The most obvious one is to declare gender marker changes "erroneous," then revoke under §51.62 (a) (2) ("The passport has been obtained erroneously...").

Laws change, too. Our admin could make new ones that forbid gender changes.

The base rate is super tiny, but most of effective politics is good performativity toward the issues that the fandom "cares" about (trans issues are boring as hell but the fandom wants their blood and theatrics, so the incoming administration is incentivized to "deal with it", or at least be seen as doing so)

idk. I'd be thrilled to be wrong, come profit off my pessimism! :-)