This question resolves YES if, before expiry, there is some continuous 120-day period where any particular country both (1) refuses substantially all entry to visitors whose passports either (a) do not contain any “Sex” field or (b) contain a value not obviously specifying “Male” or “Female” in that field; and (2) maintains their status as “safe to visit”, as defined below.
Otherwise (EOY2040), this question resolves NO.
Safety
For countries other than the U.S., this question will define “safe to visit” as having a Level 1 advisory status according to the U.S. Bureau of Consular Affairs’ Travel Advisories.
For the U.S. itself, (only relevant should it adopt a policy of refusing entry to foreigners on the basis of an absent, undisclosed, or non-binary "Sex" field on their passport,) this question will define the U.S. being “safe to visit” as whether a ⅔ population-weighted majority of E.U. countries have either (1) issued an advisory affirming that the U.S. is generally safe to visit, or (2) have not issued any prescriptive travel advisory about the U.S..
For countries (including the U.S., if applicable) which are large enough to be split up into regions with separate travel advisory danger ratings, a country will be deemed “safe to visit” for the purposes of this question if it contains at least one region/state/territory that is both (1) designated as generally safe to visit by the travel advisory, and (2) is possible to enter from another “safe to visit” region.
If criterion (2) of the preceding paragraph results in a disconnected graph, only countries in the largest component of that graph (judged by node population) will be deemed “safe to visit”.
For example: Even though almost all of Mexico has at least a Level 2 travel advisory, Campeche is designated as Level 1 “Exercise normal precautions”, and contains an international airport with direct service to many other “safe to visit” regions. Therefore Mexico would de deemed "safe to visit" for the purposes of this question.
For example: as long as Denmark’s travel advisory map of the United States contains at least 1 “groen” area with an international airport with good service to the rest of the world, Denmark would be counted as deeming the U.S. “safe to visit”" for the purposes of this question.
For example: if all regions in Mexico were to retain their current travel advisory status, but Campeche and Yucatan (Mexico's only current “safe to visit” regions) were to lose all international airport service while maintaining flight service to each other, Mexico would lose its “safe to visit” status under the small disconnected component exception, as there'd be no way for members of the general world population passports to actually visit this tiny, isolated subgraph of habitability.
Gender-Neutral Passports
A country that requires some binary sex declaration on visa or immigration paperwork will generally not be automatically included on that basis. If the country allows visitors to use an undisclosed/gender-neutral/non-binary passport for identification, while also requiring some other legal documents attesting the visitor's biological sex (such as birth certificate or regional I.D. card), that country would still be deemed to allow gender-neutral passports.
A country that makes exception to a general policy of refusing travelers with gender-neutral passports for no more than an extremely limited number of persons will not be disqualified on that basis, and will still be deemed for the purposes of this question to have such a policy. A country that claims to have a policy to refuse entry to bearers of gender-neutral passports, yet admits more than an extremely limited number of persons in a given calendar year, will be deemed for the purposes of this question not to actually have said policy for the entirety of that calendar year. (For the purposes of this paragraph, "extremely limited" is defined as the greater of 5, or 0.000005% of the country's population, rounded up.)
Hairsplitting
This question concerns acceptance/refusal of visitors with otherwise current, valid passports, on the basis of the “Sex” field on that passport. It does not address issuance, revocation, or any other topic not stated in the title.
For example: if the United States were to proactively revoke all of its own previously-issued gender-neutral passports, while continuing to allow foreign tourists to use gender-neutral passports for entry, the latter fact would be relevant for this question, even if some U.S. citizen who was abroad during that revocation subsequently experienced difficulties during re-entry with their (now-invalid) passport.
If, by expiry, no country is “safe to visit”, this question will (trivially) resolve NO.
If, before expiry, there is some kind of unforseeable event that renders the terms of resolution obviously intractable, such as (a) a One World Government takeover which which would render nationality-based “passports” irrelevant, (b) the dissolution of the E.U., which would upset the measure for the U.S. being “safe to visit”, or (c) the Travel Advisories publication getting cancelled or falling into obvious and substantial disrepair, I will cease all my own trading activity on this question and adapt it cy-près to fit its underlying goal of predicting whether any non-barbarian government will ban queer tourists by the end of 2040.
1,000
3.00The inspiration for this question was witnessing an argument where one party claimed being banned from “Islamic sh*tholes” was actually an advantage of a gender-neutral passport, while the other claimed that “some countries in Europe” have such a ban in place and so having such a passport might unnecessarily constrain a reasonable middle-class person’s vacation plans.
https://www.npr.org/2025/03/22/nx-s1-5336792/european-countries-canada-travel-warnings-us
On Monday, Ireland's Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade revised its travel advisory for transgender citizens planning to travel to the U.S. They warned that US officials have indicated that ESTA and visa applications "should reflect the traveller's biological sex at birth."
Similarly, the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs updated its guidance on Tuesday stating that Dutch citizens must also include their gender at birth on their ESTA and visa applications.
Finland's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, citing Trump's executive order that the U.S. now only recognizes two sexes, male and female, says if the gender listed on an applicant's passport does not match their gender assigned at birth, their travel permit or visa application can be denied.
Finland's Consular Services of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs tells NPR it is monitoring the situation for potential changes in U.S. administrative practices. So far, consular officials have indicated that the impact on Finnish travelers has "been limited."
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Denmark updated its visa guidelines on Thursday with a similar warning, telling those applying for a visa or ESTA to the U.S. that the country only allows two gender options to choose from. For travelers whose passport has an X marker or one that's different than their assigned gender at birth, the ministry recommends that they contact the U.S. embassy for further guidance.
The country also warns Danes they risk being denied entry or expelled from the U.S. if they provide false reasons for visiting, overstay the timeframe allowed by their visas, or have a criminal conviction in the country.