Hell for them is probably scurvy. 
Fruit wouldn’t do that!
Only if you don’t partake of the sacrament.
Hopefully it won’t be persimmons then.
Why does religion always devolve into sectarianism? 
1 Like
You must be young. Only in the past couple of decades (at the most) have I started to hear people use these two distinct definitions of gender and sex. Previously, these two words were interchangeable.
The modern Webster’s dictionary defines gender:
the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex
The 1828 version of the Webster’s dictionary definded gender:
A sex, male or female
I wish I could find intermediate years of the dictionary to compare the evolution of the definition… It is quite clear that the definition has evolved, though.
We need a ripeness test.
I don’t know about persimmon eaters, but tomato eaters clearly aren’t fruitarians! 
Throw her in the water and see if she floats! Wait a minute…
Are you trying to start a religious war?!?
I also went to school in the 80’s. There is no way that I was taught that gender was a spectrum that was independent of sex. I was taught that sex and gender were synonyms.
There might have been some pockets of social “scientists” that were using the two terms in separate ways, but I would wager that a dictionary from the 1980s defines gender and sex identically.
Can you offer some examples?
My impression is that the things that have stayed constant far outweigh the things that have varied, and the nature of the things that varied (eg., long vs. short hair) are trivial, while the constants are far more profound. For example: women (=humans with a XY chromosome pair) are more cautious about casual sex than men.Women exhibit aggression in qualititively different ways compared to men.
Hmm, maybe where you come from. 
Relatively speaking. For a given average level of “cautious”. It’s unusual to find a society where women are sexually aggressive and men are all nancyboys.
EDIT: this just happened to pop up on my YouTube timewasting selection. In my fairly modest experience, all of these behaviours are cross-cultural constants (allowing for individual differences of course):
Of course they are. There are obvious biological and evolutionary reasons for this.
It’s a constant across not just cultures and times, but across species as well. The females, as in virtually all sexually dimorphic species, give birth to the young and thus require a period of pregnancy. To maximize their chances of producing evolutionary successful offspring, the females of most species are much more careful when choosing a sexual partner. Whereas the males are typically ready to reproduce anywhere at anytime with anyone.
The “blank slate” people are really baffling to me. By “blank slate,” I’m referring to people who believe (and this is a common belief among social “scientists”) that people are born as blank slates and all of our gender patterns and norms are culturally and socially imposed on us. That is just so divorced from reality…and has no basis in actually science.
The humanities rarely allow reality to get in the way of a good theory.
4 Likes
There’s a lot of species out there, in the various kingdoms. What counts as sexually dimorphic these days?
The standard definition seems pretty cut and dry.
Sexually dimorphic: Sexual dimorphism is the condition where the two sexes of the same species exhibit different characteristics beyond the differences in their sexual organs.
Okay, so for plants that are sexually dimorphic, in the technical sense – and that’s not the majority of them but still a large number of species – are the females more selective with their partners than the males are? 
What point are you trying to make? Plants don’t exhibit any behavior. They don’t have brains or instinct…