The Economist Cannot Distinguish Boy from Girl

The Economist has been driven crazy by sex and now cannot distinguish between a boy and a girl. It writes that 

The cost of the sensory and neurological mechanisms needed to identify another’s sex, and thus permit sex-discriminating mating behaviour, is high.

that is, those poor human creatures must invest much time and energy in investigating the gender of the other human, a procedure that evolution would have eliminated eons ago. According to The Economist, sex costs close to nothing (The Economist have never courted a Jewish Princess! and never visited Paris!) so, from an evolutionary point of view, it is more practical to fuck first and then ask what or whom, but yes, as frequently as possible. This theory explains to The Economist satisfaction why humans (some of them) practice homosexuality. They simply were not equipped by Nature to invest the time and attention necessary to ascertain that they were fucking the right kind of mammal. A hole is a hole and that's is all one needs to know!

I may be wrong, but from an evolutionary point of view, human homosexuality is very expensive, to the point of causing evolutionary extinction if it goes wrong. To write the opposite is sheer lunacy. Usually, The Economist is less stupid.