See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sex
This is a duplicate of this market, with clearer resolution criteria and timeframe.
This market resolves once no new comments about it have been posted on the relevant Wikipedia talk pages in 1 month, and there is not some pending decision being awaited that's likely to come soon.
If there is a clear "winner" that most people agree on, the market resolves in that direction. Otherwise it resolves based on whether the introduction still refers to gametes and/or chromosomes as the primary factor in the core definition of the term. Other minor factors are acceptable, but if anything else is on par with chromosomes and/or gametes, this resolves YES.
Given the subjectivity and controversialness of this topic, I won't bet. Please ask any clarifying questions in the comments and I'll update this description as necessary in accordance with the spirit of the market.
Please do not comment on the Wikipedia page if you don't have something meaningful to add, they have a policy against canvassing. This market is intended to be predictive only.
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ117 | |
| 2 | Ṁ64 | |
| 3 | Ṁ26 | |
| 4 | Ṁ22 | |
| 5 | Ṁ11 |
@IsaacKing This can resolve NO now. Last comment is from December 15th. The closure of the RfC states:
> The outcome of the RfC is a rough consensus to use the reproductive definition in this article.
If the Wikipedia editors decide on the option they’re calling “disambiguate”, how will this market resolve? I think that option entails retitling the current article to e.g. “Sex (reproductive)” and keeping the content as-is, plus creating a disambiguation page so that if someone links to “Sex” they land on a page that is like, “Do you mean biological sex, or sexual identity in humans, or sexual activity?”