I think what ultimately defines masculinity/femininity is a multi-variable equation. A combination if social and biological factors.
The social variables are likely to change and the biological ones are not. An example being, high-heels beginning as men’s fashion. Now almost exclusively female fashion. Unlike, maybe… Combat roles? Which isn’t exclusively male now or historically, but men are still more likely to pursue and succeed in those roles.
So, what makes something masculine and feminine changes over time, but there are some aspects that remain consistent. But it is important to understand how these things are defined, because “masculine” isn’t exclusive to men. “Feminine” isn’t exclusive to women either. When we are speaking in such generalized terms like “Men and Women”, we are talking about traits in the extremes of the distribution, because that is where you find the differences. Men and women are more similar than not, but at the extremes there are measurable differences, and that is the influence for the sociocultural definitions of Masculine and Feminine.
Another example, men are physically larger and stronger than women. Does this mean there is no women larger than a man? Surely not. Does this mean that a woman will never be stronger than a man? No, there are strong women and weak men. But if you take the top 10 biggest, strongest people in the world, they are all men.
But this biological marker influence the sociocultural definitions. It is statistically true, when it comes to physical violence in marriage, women attack their husbands more than husbands attack their wives. This is a bit in conflict with other statistics we have, where in the extremes, women are more associated with traits of agreeableness and nurturing, and men are over-represented in anti-social personality disorders that makes them prone to violence. So why do women attack their husbands more than husbands attack their wives?
Well, men are bigger and stronger on average. So the consequences for them attacking women is much more sever than vice versa. Which is also why we hear about women being victims of domestic abuse when men are marginally more likely to be such.
So we can see how several biological factors play into the sociocultural development of gender roles. I think it is a mistake to look at this and say “Gender is defined by biology”. That is fine when you are talking about large groups of people. But the context changes when you are talking about an individual.
Women might be more likely to hit their husbands than vice versa. But you can’t point to a random woman on the street and assume she beats her husband. That’s not how it works.
Women are more associated with the trait of agreeableness, but not all women are agreeable. So it is wrong to look at definitions of masculine and feminine as recipes on how to be a man or a woman. I would say those words are used to describe traits and the sociocultural impact of those traits, like I described above, as it relates to men and women. And those things are complex, multivariable things, and the variables are different for every person. Even then, they don’t always translate from one culture to another either. Despite the biological markers being the same. It has more to do with how those markers have been organically interpreted by that society.
When I say Anduin isn’t masculine… I don’t mean that in an insulting way. He has traits that are more associated with women, is all. He is agreeable, he is nurturing. A big part of it is appearance as well, and that is an aspect I do not entirely understand. Being pretty is seen as feminine whereas being rugged or handsome is seen as masculine, and I wonder if that is just a consequence of men being more likely to be in combat and labor roles. Thus men more likely being rugged in appearance? I don’t know.
TLDR… the terms masculine and feminine are just words we use to describe generalized observations between the sexes in out society, and while there is measurable differences, the degrees in which an individual might carry these traits is extremely varied.
