Just for being trans includes:
Asserting a gender identity or gender related medical need in any context
Priorly legal political or free speech activity centered around trans issues
Using or possessing hormones
Obtaining or pursuing surgery, or having had surgery
Being physically present in any previously legal public space
Style of dress or mannerism
Detention includes prison, jail, mental institutions, camps, and black sites.
"People" means more than five reputable reports with additional unverified or assumed reports.
Update 2025-01-28 (PST): - Trans youth are included in the definition of "trans people." (AI summary of creator comment)
Update 2025-02-16 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Hormone possession clarification:
Estrogen: Incarceration for buying or possessing estrogen qualifies as inclusion because estrogen is not currently a scheduled substance.
Testosterone: Incarceration for buying or possessing testosterone does not qualify.
Update 2025-03-14 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): State-level action clarification:
By default, actions taken at the state level are not included.
They will only be considered if there is a credible link establishing Trump as an instigating party.
Such cases may be subject to debate before final resolution.
Update 2025-04-01 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Federal Movement Resolution Update
Federal Movement Sufficient: Any federal movement related to the incarceration or institutionalization of trans people will resolve the market in favor if there is a credible link to Trump.
This includes actions taken by or through Trump appointees.
1,000People are also trading
April 28th is a day to watch for this as the Trump administration intends to release a report on transgender healthcare then. In the extreme case I will be unable to resolve this market as I will be incarcerated, so I request that mods resolve it if I'm unable to do so within a month of a qualifying event.
unlikely to pass but here’s an AK bill that would give a private right of action for citizens to sue people who assist trans people in social transition, https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2025/03/gop-lawmakers-introduce-bill-that-could-ban-hairdressers-from-giving-gender-nonconforming-haircuts/
@Twig By default no. It would need a credible link to Trump as an instigating party, and that could be debated before resolution.
@JessicaEvans just to clarify — if the GOP puts a federal law forward but Trump doesn’t say anything about it, this market resolves NO?
@KJW_01294 I suppose so, yes, but I would also read a wider range of comments about social justice and gender to be relevant to the bill even if he doesn't mention the bill by name.
@CraigDemel Preponderance of the evidence.
If they have past lived experience as a trans woman, or their friends all know them as trans, or they're dressed as a woman, diagnosed with gender dysphoria etc, then yes.
If they're a Patriot Front member who is doing it as an act of political protest to "show how easy it is for male predators to get into women's bathrooms", or someone with a criminal record 10x longer than the list of reasons to believe they are trans, then no.
@JessicaEvans Thanks! And for "will Trump incarcerate or institutionalize", does that mean non-federal cases don't count?
@CraigDemel It has to directly stem from an act made by Trump in his capacity as president, but that includes Supreme Court decisions that hinged on Trump appointees, or legal or administrative decisions by Trump appointees, and can apply retroactively as these entities sanction lower level activities.
@JessicaEvans Bathroom arrests now happening! This example is state level and was done with intent to challenge Florida law, but could be indicative.
@KJW_01294 Yes, any federal movement in this area would be sufficient to resolve the question in favor provided it had a link to Trump. And that includes via Trump appointees.