How would this market resolve if an intersex person who was assigned male at birth (eg because they had a penis) but had ovaries and a uterus where to get pregnant and carry this pregnancy to term? This is something that I fairly confidante has already happened but I can’t find a simple source for this.

@TomBouley damn, this is what I get for copying another market. The question I am interested in is for endosex people (what a weird use of that prefix, I would have expected intra- or cis-). @IsaacKing would you like to weigh in here, since the Q affects your markets too?

@TomBouley fwiw, this is completely outside the bounds of what I thought the question was asking when I betted. Someone born with a uterus obviously has some sort of existing capacity to get pregnant (even if it's complicated).

'The process must be relativly safe and not highly experimental, and it must be cheap enough to be available to the middle class.'

-heavily implies that the question is targeting males who previously could not become pregnant

I am making the call that unless @IsaacKing says otherwise, I mean someone who was born without biological deviation from the binary. That means that the procedure itself must work for people who

• Were born XY, with the SRY gene on their Y chromosome

• At some point had at least one teste that functioned at an age-appropriate level

• Was not born with a uterus, vagina, or ovaries

It does not matter to me if the first person to receive this care happens to be intersex, and I would not consider it a false positive to mark this as YES if they are later discovered to be intersex

like actual pregnancy? Or just a method to have biological children generally?

@inerati and relatedly:

How about if someone born male carried and gestated a baby in their abdomen and then had a caesarian?

@JoshuaWilkes that is the intent here. I imagine it would be done via uterine transplant, but even if it was an artificial device I would sign off on it so long as the fetus is inside the pregnant person

@inerati does that clarify?

@LivInTheLookingGlass Yes. Was mostly clarifying as I think vat baby type situation is significantly more likely

Prediction markets predict strong AGI by 2030 at ~50%

any arguments for why P(this question | AGI by 2030 && AGI doesn't kill everyone) isn't almost 100%? that's a whole 15 years for AGI to become superhuman and develop unimaginable nanotech.

@AlexAmadori btw I'm not saying I agree with the markets on AGI, just that this should be a pretty strong statistical arbitrage

Original