Peterkin

I'd be okay with that. Suppose you exclude the brutal sports from co-ed classification and keep them segregated? Probably most women could live with that, but it still leaves the transgendered out in the cold. I suppose, if they really wanted to play American football or rugby, they'd have to out in different leagues for the best fit. Of course, big mass-strength-twitch sports already exclude a lot of men, and team sports divided by age disadvatage slow-growing boys, while unfairly benefiting fast-growing girls. How about the experts and organizers of each sport coming up with an innovative system of classification for their sport; try out a few ideas and see what works? They wouldn't have to spectate: they could participate.

You don't have to go so far. The roadways only need to be permeable, or convex (whichever is appropriate to its use) in order to collect water, and a light colour, to reflect sunlight, instead of absorbing it. OTH, your house walls - what isn't covered in vegetation, need to be thick and heat-retentive, to cut down on heating/cooling. You need not depend on solar energy (which still carries a biggish ecological burden in its batteries and distribution system); you can augment it with whatever natural energy is most readily available in a locale: wind (This is one of many available models https://www.euronews.com/green/2021/04/06/could-this-be-the-safest-most-powerful-wind-turbine-in-the-world) wave or tide generators (not sure about these; they seem to need a lot of unwieldy infrastructure and mechanical devices https://www.alternative-energy-tutorials.com/wave-energy/wave-energy.html https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/tidal-energy/) and of course, good old hydro, which ought to be done on small scale, according to local ecology and conditions, instead of damming the big, life-blood rivers, so that the trickle that finally reaches the ocean is too shallow for salmon to negotiate. https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/planning-microhydropower-system Of course, the most important, decisive aspect of power is how it's used. We've been unforgivably wasteful for a very long time. We need to make our houses and factories far more efficient (and wherever possible, self-sufficient) https://www.nxtcontrol.com/factory-ecomation/ and we need to rely a lot less on technology and a lot more on human motive power - we'd be a whole lot healthier, too. There are ideas and experiments and projects all over the world - and people (I mean normal people, not eco and architecture geeks like me) hardly ever hear about them. If you build earth-sheltered, packed earth, straw-bale or cob house, or build thick rock walls to collect heat, you have protection from heavy weather, and a lot less sail surface for the wind get hold on. If you then make the roof a low curve, it's a natural shelter. https://www.buildwithrise.com/stories/underground-homes You have to make sure you're digging above the water table and the flood-plain of the nearest river. With city apartment buildings, this is more complicated. I would very strongly recommend low-rise, low-profile, blunt-cornered buildings with deep cellars and reinforced exit tunnels. Those tall forest-buildings in Milan and Singapore look beautiful, but they are vulnerable, and hard to escape from. Put a berm around the whole complex, https://www.stantec.com/en/ideas/elevating-low-rise-development-its-a-swell-idea and you're practically home-free - plus some really good skateboarding, sledding opportunities for the residents... Here is a cool design for a public building https://www.visitnorway.com/places-to-go/eastern-norway/oslo/oslo-opera-house/

no Relevance to gender?

yes thanks

I don't appreciate being implicated in people's personal feuds.

So, this is just wishing, not practical speculation on future resource-management.

Where would the produce and energy come from? Ordering is easy; delivering is work. Michelin meals are not exactly "processed"; the house would need some very fine robotics with a range of chef skills... I doubt a self-catering home will be within reach of the vast majority. On the contrary, it looks as if the future will have to be a whole lot less lavish than past we're accustomed to.

A lot of water collection [where legal] and storage retrofits are already available, and there is a ton of information on grey water recycling. The Earthship home designs were developed in the desert and are entirely self-sufficient - as I believe every house should be, for survival necessities, and every community should be for conveniences and comforts.

No pages 'convinced' me. My two basic opinion on sports: They should not be segregated or commercialized. It's unlikely that I'll see either of those desiderata come to pass, but I have certainly never advocated keeping the old system of classification. All I suggested here was a side-by-side comparison study of the old system with a new one. What are you on about? I'm for scrapping all categorization (whether by sex, gender, race or age.) and adopt leagues based solely on skill level and physical type (size, weights, shape, muscle mass - whatever applies in a given sport) If small, weak women can't find a male opponent in their class, they'll have to play against kids, or however it works out that everybody gets a chance a play. It is supposed to be play, not this crippling, life-consuming, objectifying grist-mill of a business. I'm not mis-anything-istic by policy, although I do have mis-feelings about some persons at some times.

Like this? https://thedigestonline.com/community-human-interest/sustainable-cities-of-the-future/ Or this one? https://www.euronews.com/green/2021/10/19/welcome-to-the-milan-apartments-where-300-humans-live-in-harmony-with-21-000-trees The future is among us.

Ear-tag from a cow?

Try a size/skill vs sex/age categorization for five years and see what happens. If oddly gendered individuals find their way into sports from which they had been barred, good for them. If they don't fit in, think of some other way. Nobody should be prevented from doing what they love, just because of old rules, based on outmoded assumptions. Sports and games should not be about exclusion.

They're coming to take away your guns. They're coming to take away your trucks. They're coming to take away your cattle. They're coming to take away your supremacy. (Maybe we should?)

I like these. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_QbbMBLhug

It might be more productive to start from what isn't wrong and work outward, in all directions, from there.

You know the refrain: "Now is not the time for legislation; now is the time for thoughts and prayers."

There is also a question of accuracy. In driving school, the faster reaction time of male students translated into a higher percentage of virtual accidents: they'd step on the brake sooner, but sometimes it was the gas pedal instead; the girls were generally (not uniformly) a fraction of a second slower, but (generally, not uniformly) more accurate. You can see this in soccer. The MLS pro teams are painful to watch: they have a lot off-side calls and fouls, collide with each other, make sloppy passes and high, wide goal shots, can't control the ball - but they're decisive, run very fast and kick very hard. The North American women's teams are much better co-ordinated. Maybe they just have better [male] coaches?

It might be interesting, if that trend were to reach sufficient momentum. I don't really think there's time. Cars, planes, motorbikes and sailboats are not evolutionary developments. Or necessities, for that matter. No ape ever had to adapt riding or driving muscles. Where the motive power is independent of the athlete, body shape and muscle-mass are not issues. As for the psychological aspect of sex differentiation, the assumptions have been pretty just that - assumptions based on the observation of society from the POV of the observer (20th century red state American, 18th century French aristocrat, 8th century Druid priestess, 2nd century BCE Greek pedagogue or 6th century BCE Chinese civil servant) - always different, always changing. Attitudes and interests are formed early in life, and heavily influenced by the social environment. So easy, in fact, as to appear facile and perhaps merit a deeper examination. I don't know; I'm merely speculating. Sports and games go a very long way back in human prehistory, but have only recently become a commercial and scientific endeavor. Many children participate at the play level; only a few exceptional athletes go on to the big money, the big trophies and fame - and they don't do it through their own individual effort. Sport in this kind of framework is not an evolutionary development; the character traits required to thrive in this kind of sport environment is not an evolutionary necessity - any more than the traits required to manipulate mechanical devices. https://azcaa.com/benefits-of-co-ed-sports/ Would it really be so terrible to sort child teams by size and skill, rather than age and sex? In high school and college - mating age - other considerations may intrude - but probably not among serious athletes. (Of course, I'm against 'serious' sport to begin with. It's no fun anymore.)

Opportunity, access, early training, money, facilities, free time, parental and community support, societal and peer approval. It's largely a question of how children are treated. If the general assumption is that girls are good at/for some things and boys are good at other things, the scope of talent development is limited for both.

Olympics may not count as evidence, but https://www.pledgesports.org/2018/12/sports-where-men-and-women-compete/ But at east some sporting organizations acknowledge that sometimes skill is more decisive than progenerative hardware. Something else, evidently.

Ride horses. In many different kinds of competition. Also drive them in sulkies. But if Olympic medals are not proof of riding ability, I guess there must be some other criterion. What, you mean I sidestepped a gotcha by restating what I had been saying all along? Sorry I missed it. Thank you for not going straight to Hitler. Which was laid by - whom, where, in what way?

And way back there somewhere, I think I advocated for size/weight/level categories, so that small men and women could also participate. That right. They can, they have, they won Olympic medals.

You asked whether, with the right training, women can become jockeys. They have become jockeys, which ought to be sufficient proof that they can. They're not competing against men in the race; the horses (colts, fillies, mares, stallions and geldings - nobody seems to mind about that) are competing against other horses. All the jockeys are competing for is a chance to ride the best horses in the most prestigious races. As I'm growing tired of pointing out, it's not like basketball.

It was an answer to your question. Women do all kinds of things now that only men used to be allowed to to do: drive cars, study medicine, vote... What's the big deal? In a sport where the motive power comes from a source other than the human - whether that's a car, a horse, a camel or an airplane - skill and brains count for more than muscle. (Of course, that doesn't mean black men can play baseball....)

Sure. Female jockeys have been around for a century.