The outcome of the RfC is a rough consensus to use the reproductive definition in this article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sex#RFC:_Definition_of_Sex

This could still change with another RfC before the summer.

Looks like the RfC was closed with the rough consensus that the article will retain the reproductive definition. Is this sufficient for resolution?

Why not just bet on the outcomes mentioned in the talk page: current reproductive version, disambiguation, or multifactoral?

For this market, multifactoral means YES, dmb means what, reproductive means NO?

@Ernie "Reproductive" is the current definition, "multifactorial" is how some users are trying to redefine the concept.

@ersatz great, is there a market where I can bet on which state production wikipedia will be in at the target date, by name?

I'm very interested in this market resolution because it seems that the push for a redefinition of the concept of "sex" is based almost entirely on a recent shift in the scientific community in the context of the current culture war. Redefining the very concept on Wikipedia would be a sign for many people that the sense-making institutions are fully captured even in fundamental biology.

I thought it was a verb and not a noun.

Here is a more clearly-defined version of this question:

@IsaacKing This is no clearer than simply checking whether a consensus has been reached on an RFC.

@ersatz It is much clearer and less misleading, because the description actually accords with the title and provides a way for traders to verify for themselves how it should resolve. Your definition requires obscure knowledge about how Wikipedia culture works, and can have this market resolve YES with no relevant changes to the Wikipedia page.

@IsaacKing This market allows people to check for themselves on the Talk page of "sex" whether consensus has been reached on any of the relevant RFCs.

@ersatz You have still provided no instructions for how anyone who cannot read your mind is able to do that.

@IsaacKing It is highlighted by a specific header when a consensus has been reached in an RFC with that a description of the consensus in question. You really don't need to read a mind, just the text.

@ersatz That image is lorum ipsum (placeholder) text. How is it supposed to be relevant?

@IsaacKing This is simply the header that is added to an RFC once it has been closed. It includes a description of the consensus that has been reached, or an explanation of why consensus is unlikely to be reached.

@ersatz Ok, so when the discussion is closed and such a header is added, this market resolves YES? And if that hasn't happened by market close, it resolves NO?

@IsaacKing The market resolves to YES if an RFC is closed (with this header) and has reached consensus in favor of redefining the concept of "sex".

An RFC may also be closed for having reached consensus on not redefining the concept of "sex", or simply because it is unlikely to reach consensus.

@ersatz Ok, that's better, and removes the egregious misleadingness of the title, but you still haven't explained how you'll determine whether the resulting article has been redefined or not.

@IsaacKing The article's modifications are downstream of the success of the campaign to redefine the concept of "sex". I'm interested in the campaign's success in this market.

@ersatz Ok, so why are you so consistently refusing to provide a definition of "success"?

@IsaacKing To reiterate, the success of the campaign is defined in this market by an RFC that would be closed on a consensus in favor of redefining the concept of "sex".

@ersatz Can you provide an example of another RFC that has been closed and the page itself provides a YES/NO answer on the success of the campaign?

@IsaacKing I don't understand what you're asking.

An example of a closed RFC with the corresponding consensus reached: