This market resolves as YES if, at any point before 2025, the Movement Advancement Project (MAP) shows that at least 90% of adult LGBTQ+ people live in states with a "high" overall trans equality policy tally OR states with a "negative" overally trans equality policy tally. Otherwise, it resolves as NO on January 1, 2025.
To put it another way: if the "Percent of Adult LGBTQ Population Covered by Laws" table on the "Gender Identity" tab of this page shows that the percentage of adult LGBTQ+ people living in high-tally states and the percentage of adult LGBTQ+ people living in negative-tally states sum to 90% or more, this resolves as YES.
Additional context
As of September 2023, MAP's table shows that 45% of LGBTQ+ adults in the U.S. live in high-tally states, while 35% live in negative-tally states - this sums to 80% of LGBTQ+ adults in the U.S. living in states that are either very supportive of or very hostile towards trans rights.
A negative-tally state is one that not only doesn't provide protections to trans people, but actively discriminates against them through hostile legislation as well.
This market would resolve YES through some combination of medium-tally states (New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Michigan, Virginia, Delaware) becoming high-tally states while low-tally states (Ohio, West Virginia, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Iowa, Utah, and Alaska) become negative-tally states.
Given the current party control of those states' governments (as seen here), the most likely medium-tally states to become high-tally states are Rhode Island, Michigan, and Delaware; while the most likely low-tally states to become negative-tally states are Ohio, West Virginia, Iowa, and Utah.
Fine print
The MAP doesn't provide granular percentages, so it's possible that "only" 89.9% of LGBTQ+ Americans could be living in states that are highly polarized about trans rights while this market still resolves as YES, depending on how MAP rounds their percentages.
Puerto Rico and other territories aren't included in the count, since the MAP doesn't have estimates of how many LGBTQ+ people live there. This makes a YES resolution marginally more likely than it would be otherwise, since Puerto Rico has a "fair" policy tally as of August 2023.
If the MAP no longer exists on January 1, 2025, this market resolves as N/A.
1,000I think these resolution criteria are pretty different from the title? The title is asking about state policies, while the description talks about where trans people live. There's an obvious incentive for trans people to move to states with more pro-trans laws, so those seem like pretty different questions to me?
@IsaacKing The main reason I'm using a resolution criteria involving population is that it more accurately measures the actual impact of these policies on trans people - e.g. a single policy in Texas affects a lot more trans people than dozens of policies in North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and Wyoming. MAP provides population estimates of the LGBTQ+ population per state already, and using them makes it much more easy for me to resolve this market (plus, different organizations may have different ways to estimate the number of LGBTQ+ people in each state, and relying on one organization for both the policy tally and population makes sense to me.) Mobility between states is also fairly low - I know a lot of trans people who are stuck in states with anti-trans governments who don't have the resources to move across state lines. Many of these policies also disproportionately impact trans children, who don't have a direct say in where they live.
@evergreenemily Sure, but now there are tons of confounders like "does the state's policy make it harder for trans people to move", "will trans people start clustering more tightly in communities of other trans people", "will state populations change significant in general", etc. Makes it harder for me to think about, personally.
Rather than argue over the merits of this question I've just made a separate one. :)
https://manifold.markets/IsaacKing/will-us-state-policies-on-transgend