And I mean in the culinary sense. Of course it’s a fruit botanically!
Pumpkin is a variety of squash and no one questions if the other squash are vegetables so vegetable it is.
Yeah, it’s a squash with seasonal pretensions.
When I have pumpkin soup it’s a vegetable, when I have pumpkin pie it’s a fruit.
If you have to cook it, it’s a vegetable. In my opinion. Bananas: Fruit. Plantains: Vegetable. You can cook fruits, but you shouldn’t have to.
Not sure about that distinction. Carrots? Celery?
For me, pumpkin is a vegetable. Yes, it can be used in sweet situations, like how carrots or zucchini can be used in cake, or sweet potatoes in pie, but it’s still a vegetable to me, culinarily.
It doesn’t go both ways. Just because you can eat a carrot raw doesn’t mean carrots are fruits.
Anything gourd-like I treat like a veggie.
I’m unclear. You said if you HAD to cook it, it’s a vegetable. You CAN cook fruits, but you shouldn’t have to. By that definition, carrots and celery fit in exactly.
For me, it’s mostly a matter of sweetness, I think.
Pumpkins are oversized berries, like melons and cucumbers
Of course it’s a fruit. And of course it’s a vegetable. Why can’t something be both?
Well, of course it’s both (as are a lot of vegetables), but even when I use it in a pie, I still think of it as a vegetable.
How do you distinguish between gourds and melons?
By the clothing it wears?
In fact, a lot of vegetables are better raw. Basically, anything you put in a salad. And lettuce in general would be gross cooked.
By how much I want to see it on the brunch buffet table.
The latter are best eaten in their raw form rather than cooked. Not that you can’t eat some gourds raw; that just isn’t the usual way of doing it under this roof.
For the same reason chickens can’t cross the road without having their motives questioned. Society is to blame. 
Zyada, why don’t you share with us how you distinguish between the two, and why it matters in a culinary sense?
Right, the fact that you have to cook it rules out a pumpkin being a fruit. But the fact that you don’t have to cook carrots doesn’t mean they must be fruits. “Able to be eaten raw” is a necessary condition for being a fruit, in my mind. It is not sufficient, however. Not everything you can eat raw is a fruit, but every fruit can be eaten raw.
Which leads to the controversial conclusion that plantains are not fruits but their sweeter cousin the banana, which grows on the same species of tree and looks exactly the same but which can be eaten raw, is a fruit. I’m okay with that distinction. The culinary distinction between fruits and vegetables is arbitrary anyway, unlike the botanical definition of fruit.
And yes, sweetness is a big part. “Sweet plant matter which can be eaten raw” might be a good enough definition for me. If someone bred a sweet lettuce that you could add to, say, peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, I would probably consider that a fruit. Others might disagree with me there.
I wonder where that leaves rhubarb, however? It is almost always cooked, but some people like eating it raw. But it’s kinda sour and, cooked or raw, requires adding sugar. I think it is a lot closer to the fruit/veggie line than pumpkin, at least.
For me, rhubarb is a vegetable, even though it ends up being used in fruit-like applications quite often. I could almost put it in the fruit category, though.
Yeah, it’s all arbitrary and fairly unimportant, since many fruits and vegetables can be used culinarily in opposite roles. But it’s somewhat interesting to see how people classify them, given a binary choice.