So, I've mentioned this in other places and have never gotten a satisfactory answer.

In my view, gender theory relies on extremely rigid and outdated gender norms to formulate a 'spectrum' of gender.

For example, what would be called a tomboy in the 1980s or so would now be considered "presenting as less female" than, say, a makeup wearing cheerleader who always wears skirts. But ask a tomboy who isn't in on modern gender theory if wanting to climb trees makes her less of a woman. I dare you.

I'm a USMC combat veteran. I served with ladies who were in the Lioness program, female Marines in potentially combat roles. They cursed, spit, and could kick the shit out of guys like Milo Yiannoupolos. That doesn't make them any more male than him and it doesn't make him female.

The closest thing to an adequate answer is that none of these things matter for gender. There is in fact no metric whatsoever for gender. It's just a state of mind with no real characteristics. Which makes it entirely useless and fictional.

"Feeling feminine" is sometimes defined as being more nurtering by gender theory people, but that also implies that being nurturing makes you somehow "less male," which I guess means that fathers are less manly than guys that can't handle Parenthood? That can't be right.

I honestly want to have my view changed because I really don't want to start off every discussion on the subject with the nagging feeling that I'm talking to a bigot, but nothing has so much as nudged me in that direction. Being a tomboy doesn't make you less female. Being a good father doesn't make you less male.