About 10 months before you created this question, I created a question that I think offers some near-arbitrage opportunities (66% this vs 25% mine, at the moment.)

• This question resolves if a sex-mismatch passport is revoked; mine ONLY triggers on revocation of “X” sex passports, which should cause this to trade noticeably higher than mine since “Sex = X” is a LOT easier for a transgender-hostile administration to query for than “Sex ≠ What was on the birth certificate, if we have a copy of the birth certificate, and we have the birth certificate digitized in a queryable form, and we know for sure that the birth certificate wasn't altered”.

  • Some people do have an “X” listed for sex on their U.S. birth certificate... would a revocation of such a person's “X” passport cause this question to resolve "YES"?

• This question apparently doesn't resolve on a soft revocation scenario where the passports are notionally """valid""" but actually unusable for re-entry; was that an oversight on your part?

@JamesEAdministrator Yes, it was an oversight. Almost always I am trying to resolve based on what events happen rather than what words are permuted or removed or added to anything. This leaves me in the position of having to counter agitate weird rules lawyers, sophists, munchkins and trolls of various sorts while admitting that what my words actually say by average semantics matters more than my intent. I hate this website.

Anyone want to bet against me on no? Happy to do any %

@Rucker I've put an order up at 70% if you're interested

@Jasonb done

@Rucker A bit more at 80 if you want