Resolves once transgenderism is no longer as controversial a subject and we can be confident that research is sound and unbiased. (Probably not for another 20 years at least.)
This is about the distribution at the time of market creation, not at the time of resolution. In the event of inter-country differences, I'll resolve based on the United States only.
Related questions
FYI, "biological men/biological women" is considered a rather rude and inaccurate term in trans circles, since it conflates sex and gender in a way that can come across as deeply invalidating regardless of the intention of the speaker. I would suggest either using "biological male/biological female" (I'm personally not a fan, but it is technically accurate and more clearly about sex rather than gender; like, it is unambiguously more accurate than "biological man/woman") or "AMAB/AFAB" (the preferred term, especially because of some of the things Pat brought up in his comments - plenty of intersex people never actually know they're intersex because they just get assigned male or female at birth, and the stats on AMAB/AFAB are going to be easier to get, more reliable, and cause less dysphoria for trans people scrolling through Manifold looking at market titles.)
@evergreenemily Even then, when someone gets HRT, they change their biology. So "biological man" is not even technically correct in a lot of cases
@Loop Yeah, exactly. My biochemistry has more in common with an AFAB person than an AMAB person at this point.
@IsaacKing biological sex as a term implies we know someone's genes and gene expression, which we don't, rather than their gender assigned at birth
@Stralor We should have 1 million fully sequenced genomes within the next decade, which I believe would be a completely sufficient sample size even if ~0.25% of people were in each relevant group. Correlating genomes with gender identity might not be as clear, but, in 20+ years, I feel almost completely certain this will be resolvable. In 50 years, I'd expect the majority of first-worlders to have access to a record of their full sequence.
What is the dogwhistle here? I ask not to disagree that it's present, but because I have social anxiety and the alleged existence of dogwhistles means I have to worry even more about accidental miscommunications. This reads as totally innocuous to me, so it is important that I know what you think is wrong with it.
edit: I should clarify that last paragraph, as it potentially reads as insulting to both of you:
At least one of two things is true: Dogwhistles are a real way for radicals to publicly signal their beliefs to other radicals while hiding their beliefs from others, or dogwhistles are a real way for moderates and opposed radicals to justify blindly accusing moderates of holding radical beliefs when they have never expressed them publicly. I do not have strong, objective beliefs about which. Subjectively, I abhor the concept, but that comes from a place of emotion. In both cases, I believe they are unfalsifiable, thus my refusal to disagree that one is present here- it would be a waste of our time. In both cases, I need to be concerned about accidental miscommunication; the belief in their existence is sufficient for them to put out signal.