This question was motivated by (but isn't exclusively about) passports. On his first day back in office, Donald Trump signed an executive order telling federal agencies, including the State Department, not to recognize identities other than male or female, including when issuing passports.
If, in 2026, there is a two week period where at least a dozen transgender citizens CANNOT(!) acquire/renew passports, this resolves NO. If a motivated trans person (who is willing to check whatever box will get them out of the country on a government form) can basically always get a passport and use it to leave the country, this resolves YES.
If being transgender starts to be criminalized such that at least a dozen people are imprisoned (for at least two weeks) because of their gender identity, for taking hormones, or for other medical care, this resolves NO. If they deliberately get arrested, that doesn't count. If being trans is "criminalized" but not actually enforced, that also doesn't necessarily count.
If it's technically possible to leave the country, but being trans means there's a much higher burden, such that a large number of motivated people will de facto be unable to get passports, this also resolves NO. (Example high burden: establishing residence in another state prior to applying for a passport.)
Update 2025-02-05 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Misgendering as a Method:
If a transgender person can straightforwardly acquire a passport by selecting or using a misgendered option, then this meets the criteria for a YES resolution.
The key factor is that the passport, regardless of how it is issued, must enable the individual to easily leave the country.
Update 2025-02-11 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Important Clarifications:
Single State Barrier: If a person has to change their state of residence in order to acquire a passport, that is considered a significantly higher burden and can constitute a barrier that de facto means many people are unable to get passports (resolving NO).
Long-Distance Travel vs. Relocation: Taking a long bus or car ride to reach an airport where a passport is accepted is not considered a high enough burden to count as being trapped. The key is that the passport must allow a person to leave the country without having to permanently relocate first.
Federal vs. State Matter: Although passport issuance is a federal process, state policies can indirectly affect access if they force trans people to move. However, if a workaround (e.g., a long ride) is available, the market can still resolve YES.
Update 2025-02-11 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment):
• Possession of Gender Transition/Hormone Drugs: If more than a dozen transgender individuals are imprisoned for possessing gender transition or hormone drugs, this is treated as de facto criminalization and would likely resolve the market as NO.
• Medical Transition Attempts: Imprisonment of more than a dozen individuals for attempting to medically transition via surgery or drugs (through official channels) will similarly be considered as de facto criminalization, resolving the market as NO.
• DIY Drug Distribution: Imprisonment for DIY drug distribution is less clear and would require further details before affecting the resolution.
Update 2025-02-11 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Update from creator
Announcements do not count: The market will not resolve based solely on policy announcements; actual events must occur for a resolution.
Imprisonment criterion: If more than a dozen trans people are imprisoned for a significant period as a result of such a policy, the market would resolve as NO.
Protest nuance: If imprisonments occur but are largely from deliberate protest (with many trans people still able to leave the country), then the market might remain open and could eventually resolve as YES if passport access is generally maintained.
1,000People are also trading
If being transgender starts to be criminalized such that at least a dozen people are imprisoned (for at least two weeks) because of their gender identity
Would imprisonment for so-called "DIY" (that is, without a prescription) possession of non-controlled drugs (that is, including estrogen, progesterone, domperidone, and bicalutamide; but excluding testosterone) for gender transition purposes cause this question to resolve?
What about distribution of the same?
https://www.youtube.com/video/wZ32DDBxM-k
What if people are criminalized not solely on the basis of their gender identity, but (with clear prior warning) for attempting to medically transition, even through official medical channels?
What if trans related gender-affirming surgeries are criminalized, but HRT is not?
@JamesEAdministrator I would consider the imprisonment of >12 people for possession of gender transition/hormone drugs or attempting to medically transition via either surgery or drugs a de facto criminalization of transgender people, and very likely resolve NO. I think imprisoning DIY drug distribution is less obvious, and I'd want to see the details.
imprisonment … for possession of gender transition/hormone drugs or attempting to medically transition via either surgery or drugs[, I would consider] a de facto criminalization of transgender people
@MaxHarms So if the U.S. government announced something like this:
“Trans people are not going to be imprisoned for their identity or past activities, and can continue to get passports, and can continue to leave the country — only that, before next Monday they must all cease domestic HRT use and cancel planned gender affirmation surgeries; we don't care what they do abroad, but we are going to deem any gender transition as medical malpractice from here on out.”
…you would still resolve this question NO?
@JamesEAdministrator This question doesn't resolve based on announcements. If a dozen trans people were imprisoned for a significant time as a result of such a policy, I'd resolve NO. I could see myself being talked into keeping the market open (and eventually deciding YES) in such a scenario if there were a lot of trans people successfully leaving the country and there were a few people who were deliberately getting imprisoned as a form of protest.
If a dozen trans people were imprisoned for a significant time as a result of such a policy, I'd resolve NO. I could see myself being talked into keeping the market open (and eventually deciding YES) in such a scenario if there were a lot of trans people successfully leaving the country and there were a few people who were deliberately getting imprisoned as a form of protest.
@MaxHarms That's exactly the kind of case I'm asking about: if having gender dysphoria remains legal, and does not become grounds for revocation or refusal of passport issuance, but specific gender transition activities get criminalized — with advance notice, not retroactively — and a substantial number of people knowingly defy that law and are imprisoned as a result, how would the question resolve? If leaving remains always allowed, but 30 people decide to do a particular form of protest, this question about federal policy really resolves “NO”?
If you really meant to ask “will domestic gender-affirming care be criminalized”, and are going to resolve it as such, advertising it as a question about passports was a confusing choice…
If a motivated trans person (who is willing to check whatever box will get them out of the country on a government form) can basically always get a passport and use it to leave the country, this resolves YES. ... The key factor is that the passport, regardless of how it is issued, must enable the individual to easily leave the country.
What is the threshold for "easily" or "basically always"?
For example, in my similar question, I chose a rather aggressive threshold of just 5 states refusing to accept a given passport (since I was interested in resolving pretty sensitively, even on a relatively "soft" revocation), while this question seems more focused on whether people will actually be trapped in the country; what would your threshold be here?
Some ideas, maybe:
Resolves NO if more than 50% of international airports, or 33% of all ports of entry, unilaterally refuse access to transgender people by policy
Resolves NO if fewer than 5 states contain no ports of entry which unilaterally refuse access to transgender people by policy
Resolves NO if Canada or any country in the European Union becomes unreachable on any direct journey by any transgender U.S. citizen only due to U.S. port of entry policy
@JamesEAdministrator If a person has to move in order to get a passport, that's a "much higher burden that de facto means many people are unable to get passports" in my eyes. So, in theory, a single state could cause this to resolve NO. I didn't focus on states because acquiring and using a passport is theoretically a federal government thing, rather than a state thing. If trans people can't fly out of airports in half the country, but can still get passports easily and take a bus to one of the airports where they can fly just fine, that could still mean YES. So, I guess I think taking a long bus/car ride is easy and moving to another state is not.
(You appear to have the polarity flipped in your suggestions? YES = no problem.)
I don't care so much about destination countries. If people have to go to the UK, and can't go to Canadada or whatever, this could still be YES.
Some transparency on what I'm reaching for in this question: I have a lot of friends and family who are trans, and I'm worried about them. Being genuinely trapped in the country is one of my bigger fears, and I'm basically asking whether all of them will have the power to leave after the zeitgeist of Trump's first 100 days in office cools down. Being forced to misgender oneself is awful, but from this angle I don't want to consider it being "genuinely trapped."
If trans people can't fly out of airports in half the country, but can still get passports easily and take a bus to one of the airports where they can fly just fine, that could still mean YES. So, I guess I think taking a long bus/car ride is easy and moving to another state is not.
I see, thanks for confirming.
You appear to have the polarity flipped in your suggestions? YES = no problem
My mistake, yes. I've fixed that now.
@TheAllMemeingEye If a transgender person can straightforwardly get a passport by misgendering themself and thus leave the country, then YES.