Will transgender US passports with a gender other than that assigned at birth be revoked in 2025? By any means, including legislative or administrative.
Update 2024-11-12 (PST): A policy to revoke passports would count as a YES resolution even if it cannot be enforced due to technical/data limitations. (AI summary of creator comment)
Update 2025-06-01 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): - Scale requirement: Revocations must occur at a significant scale, such as state-wide policies or equivalent measures.
Means of revocation: Actions may include legislative, administrative, or other substantial directives that impact a large number of passport holders.
Update 2025-23-01 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Resolution Criteria Additions:
Number of Reports: Approximately ten confirmed separate instances.
Geographical Concentration: All instances must be concentrated within a single administrative region (e.g., state or city).
Evidence Sources: Acceptable sources include Substack, reputable press outlets, or detailed YouTube reports by professional reporters. Social media alone is insufficient.
Update 2025-23-01 (PST): - Number of Reports: Approximately 50 confirmed separate instances. (AI summary of creator comment)
Update 2025-25-01 (PST): - Revocations during processing are excluded from the resolution criteria. (AI summary of creator comment)
1,000People are also trading
If there are enough passports revoked that meet this market's more specific criteria, would this count?
———
US revoking visas for South Sudanese passport holders
I don't think this triggers a YES resolution based on the clarifying comments I'm seeing, but I still think this is pretty relevant to the conversation. 3:13 long video.
Anecdotal reports of confiscation of supporting documents: https://www.reddit.com/r/transgender/comments/1i7wakb/state_department_may_have_halted_processing_for/
It appears that the US State Department is no longer processing gender marker correction applications and have been instructed to confiscate the supporting documentation submitted as a part of the application
If someone surrenders their current passport as part of a gender change process and can’t get it back, does that affect this market? I assume we’re mostly concerned about proactive revocation?
Anecdotal report (N=1) of passports of trans people being confiscated:
Source of this screenshot is unclear, I’m trying to verify. This apparently happened in Florida. The post was apparently taken down.
(Edit: this could be the same case Jessica posted downthread)
@KJW_01294 Revocation during processing is a grey area that I hadn't had in mind, so because I wasn't thinking of it I'm going to take that to mean it wasn't what I meant.
White House press secretary Karlene Leavitt comments on X gender marker passports: the EO is not retroactive and does not invalidate existing passports.
@EmilyConn Thank you. However, this still ends at the end of 2025, not when an unreliable person makes a claim
@JessicaEvans totally agree. Didn’t mean to suggest that as resolution criteria, just something to update on
https://chitter.xyz/@lily@homestead.social/113878607739401374
This is:
Not an at scale decision, but a single decision made by a low level bureaucrat
Anecdotal
However, given the epistemic uncertainty that surrounds the present moment, if I receive
Around ten such reports
That can be confirmed as separate instances
That are concentrated in one administrative region (IE, a single state or city)
I am liable to resolve this in favor.
I hope no one was counting on me to depend on legacy press reports to resolve this question. If you were you should sell your position now. If you're nice to me you can make the case for not using social media as evidence, but something like Substack/the leftist press/a detail heavy youtube video by someone who makes their living as a reporter in any capacity is still going to be a plausible enough source for me.
@JessicaEvans you said in a previous comment:
But it does require scale, yes.
I took that to mean several thousand people affected. 10 is much less than I thought, so i'd like think a larger number than 10 would be better in line with the spirit of the market. I think social media posts from known people (seem not to be bots or alts) obviously count as individual instances, though. if an anon on substack just claims that thousands of people have been affected without corroborating evidence i'd be suspicious obviously but i'm guessing you would be too so think it's ok
@Bayesian There are few trans people. And no, an anecdotal report of a large number of people experiencing something by one person is not sufficient. I'm looking for sufficient evidence of a de facto state or city policy. This is why the concentration is needed. 10,000 revocations would require enforcement, which was not a requirement for resolution of this market. I am only looking for the presence of a policy. What number would be better than 10, keeping in mind that trans people with updated documents are a minority of an already small minority, and that even 10 reported instances are going to have an extreme chilling effect on attempts to update documents.
hmmm.
Approximately 1.14% of the nation's adult population, or 3 million Americans, identify as transgender.
I feel like this is a large enough number that
For purposes of this market I just mean that they make the rule, not that they are effective at enforcing it.
i think that if one corrupt person that works in some city revokes 50 trans passports in a row, against the law, that shouldn't count for this market because they did not make a rule, as per your previous market comment. but i think there's basically no way that happens without rules, so i think 50 would be a fine number that is unlikely to be reached without there being rules about revoking trans passports for the fact that the person is trans, either on the passport or according to their identity or both. in other words i'd personally prefer a policy like "it has to be a rule in a city, AND it has to be enforced on 50 or more people" (30 would be fine i guess, 10 can be caused by miscommunications if anything) but obviously it's your market and your decision.
Do I understand correctly that this requires a large amount of such passports to be affected? E.g. individual passports revoked wouldn't count, even if stated to be for this reason. A YES here would require at least an entire state to have a policy to do this (or something of similar scale), correct?
@VitorBosshard The execution of law has been wonky as of late. There may be a gray area where a governor or the president simply posts on twitter repeatedly and is obeyed. But it does require scale, yes.
Most people you'd consider "transphobic" don't actively want to harm Trans people. This is different than say ethnic hatred where you do actually want to literally kill the outgroup.
@Shai No, they just don't believe trans people are ontologically possible and so feel justified in doing literally anything to affirm what they believe to be their true nature.
@JessicaEvans I don't think that say Elon or Vance believe that being Trans is ontologically impossible.
@Shai You think they share literally any popular trans model? (Gender as a spectrum, "trapped in wrong body", gender constructivism, or gender nihilism?)
@JessicaEvans I'm a die hard gender physicalist. I regard any attempt to treat my gender as malleable as an act of genocide.
@JessicaEvans I think their trans model is more like "some people suffer from gender dysphoria, others are just perverts". And I don't think they'll go out of their way to harm the first group (and hopefully not the second group either).
There is no way for the law, or anyone for that matter, to reliably make this distinction
The distinction is likely unsound
The primary targets of legislation have been trans children and medical transitioners, who seem to be the logical negative space of perverts. IE, pre sexual beings and possible assimilating persons.
Your comment seems like insane wishful thinking against all evidence.
@JessicaEvans I'm just trying to point out there's distance between "There's a debate to be had regarding the treatment of gender dysphoria in children" and "I want to fuck [slur]s over in any way I can".
@Shai There is not a debate to be had. You are biologically incapable of truth. Recuse yourself or be dealt with as the monster you are.
@Shai I am prepared to burn in literal hell forever to vouchsafe my actions against the endless torture of children
@Shai @JessicaEvans At least in principle, shouldn't the question of whether trans is ontologically possible be separate from any policy question? You could believe that trangenderism is a usual fiction and trans people are "really" their birth gender but have pro-trans policies, or you could believe that it makes no less sense to say that trans women are women than to say that biological parents are parents but believe gender dysphoria is harmful and contagious.
I agree most people are low decoupling though. So in practice it does not work like that.
@nathanwei I agree with the premise that one should not live by delusion, so for me it hinges on ontology. I understand that normative liberalism is more permissive and think it is pragmatic to allow people a certain degree of slack. I don't think making the giving of slack into a cornerstone of your ideology is good, because then you refrain from penalizing or even reward error, and this is bound to have negative consequences.
@JessicaEvans Some number of people don't have a strong ontological opinion on transgender people but are still opposed to the liberty of trans people. The average person in Nazi Germany probably did not have strong opinions on Jewish Ontology, likewise for apartheid south africa and the black population. Most people do not have well considered opinions. The driving force behind the anti trans social movement still seems to me to hinge on an Ontological premise.
@Shai I’m genuinely curious how you feel about today’s actions? Would you say Ill will has been sufficiently demonstrated?
(Granted, the EOs don’t specify implementation, timelines, enforcement yet… I imagine that framework will come in due time)
@KimberlyWilberLIgt Honestly it's worse than I thought, I didn't think the executive order would mention passports. That said, revoking existing passports is still a step farther in terms of meanness.
@Shai It could have been a token hand out to fundamentalists and fascists instead of a signal of things to come, but if it is a signal of things to come that is the very next obvious place to go, so it would be hard to see how it could be avoided.
@JessicaEvans The anti trans crowd is a very cheap date, they would have lapped up a much smaller token hand out.
In principle I'm not even opposed to the policy of passports only having chromosomal sex / assigned sex at birth. But I would be very opposed to tracking down people who changed their passport's sex and revoking their passport. I think people should be grandfathered in.
@Shai Most people would regard me as an extremist, which is unfortunate. I would have liked to have achieved my objectives by agreement.
>I would have liked to achieved my objectives by agreement.
Respectfully, some of the things you said earlier in this thread game me the opposite impression.
see, just for context. jessica and i are feeling like shit today. we had held out hope that things wouldn't get this bad, but it's worse than even my expectations. If we're feeling testy, it's because this really complicates things for us at the airport. That's all.
there are tons of reasonable folks here, including on this thread. i asked you Shai specifically because you caught the sheer meanness of reaching over and revoking passports. Most people probably quietly feel similarly, but I appreciate that you recognized the cruelty, and I was genuinely curious how you felt about yesterday's EO.
Not trying to convince anyone, not mad, I'm just voicing where I'm coming from.
It's easy for people to be mislabeled as "belligerent trans activist" for just voicing how things affect them.
(I disagree and wish passports reflected gender identity, but my preference no longer matters.)
@KimberlyWilberLIgt I mean obviously you don't want the Canadian system where you just have to submit a request to switch your gender identity and that's it. The result of that is that a bunch of cis men with zero gender dysphoria and zero intentions of getting hormones or surgery or even of doing anything to present as female will switch their legal gender to female just because they want to be in a female prison rather than a male prison. This actually started happening in Canada.
@nathanwei This thread was about whether the current administration has ill will toward trans people specifically. I'm not here to argue whether Canada's legal framework is good or bad. (For the record I broadly think you're wrong, but that's all I have here)
@KimberlyWilberLIgt Yeah I know, I was reacting to your parenthetical comment at the end.
I think I mostly agree with Shai that there is not too much ill will towards trans people per se at least from the top of the administration. Trump did say Caitlyn Jenner can use whatever bathroom she wants. Of course the administration has a lot of people in it and I'm sure some of them have ill will toward trans people. Mostly I just think there is a big backlash against some of the excesses of the trans movement or "gender ideology" as it's called, like questions about sports and surgeries for minors, age-inappropriate discussions of transgenderism in public schools, and the general denial of the biological basis of sex. Perhaps this backlash will go too far and be anti-libertarian, preventing trans adults from living their lives as they see fit. This would be unfortunate and of course I oppose it, but still would not be conclusive evidence of genuine ill will toward trans people. Lots of laws have unintended consequences.
Of course, it's really hard to show dispositive evidence of genuine ill will toward trans people and to tell with certainty who has it and who does not. I'm sure that some people who have genuine ill will toward trans people are very good at hiding it and claiming that they only have a problem with the gender ideology.
@KimberlyWilberLIgt I should also point out that there is a big difference between "Canada's legal framework is less bad than Mississippi's" and "Canada's legal framework is the ideal framework". I also think even if you believe that Canada's self-ID framework is ideal in principle, something that has probably has 25% public support on a good day cannot survive in a democracy and is likely to lead to the kind of backlash we are seeing now. Trudeau is going to get absolutely destroyed for this, as well as for his mismanagement of the migration issue.