[EnderD_503]

Originally Posted by Slater

To me they have in them an element of role. The linkage to sexes is secondary to the linkage to a cultural role.

Then define the cultural role. What is it? What clearly defines butch and femme, masculine and feminine roles? You claim that these roles don't have to be attached to a binary, yet I've yet to see anyone demonstrate it by clearly defining masculine and feminine roles without some semblance of the traditional binary.

Originally Posted by Slater

As I said, I don't think there will ever be a satisfyingly concrete definition for either masculine or feminine, at least not one that doesn't rely so heavily on outmoded stereotypes as to be irrelevant. I think, for example, that most people recognize that someone can be athletic and still be feminine, or not be athletic and still be masculine. And are there really that many people who would argue that someone feminine cannot also be strong? I would argue that strength and athleticism are not inherently masculine characteristics. They are characteristics that can be expressed by masculine people or feminine people or people who are a combination of the two or who are none of the above. They are simply characteristics.

Yes, and that's why I'm saying that your statement that a label is not a useful label if it is limitless is entirely contradictory to the way you're using masculine and feminine in this thread. You appear to believe that masculine and feminine denote something, yet you've yet to clearly define what that "something" is.

It is the very fact that characteristics traditionally attributed to "masculine/cisgendered male" individual are not, in fact, gendered attributes that throw masculine and feminine out the window as anything other than limitless labels that some people choose to put on. If that weren't the case, then there would be a concrete and stable definition of masculine and feminine, beyond stereotypical gender roles. Instead, many redefine these terms for themselves, and few would challenge their self-identification. As such, these terms are limitless.

Originally Posted by Slater

It is how we express our characteristics, the cultural role we embody, that determines whether that expression is masculine, feminine, or something else.

How do you express your characteristics in a way that is masculine? What is that cultural role, and how is it defined? These answers are really beating around the bush instead of outright stating "such and such an expression is masculine because..." Unless a person is able to do that, then it is impossible to define "masculine" and "feminine" (unless we stick to their traditional, original definition).

What is masculine expression, specifically? What is feminine expression, specifically?

Originally Posted by Slater

And no, I don't think it is possible to nail down an exact definition of what constitutes a masculine role versus a feminine role, versus an androgynous role, etc. Because I don't think there is ever going to be precise agreement. That is why I said those words are only ever going to get us in the neighborhood of someone's identity.

Except that there have been systematic consistencies throughout the world's societies for centuries as far as what constitutes masculine and feminine, and these have not been defined by strictly Western early modern understandings of them. They go back much farther.

The very fact that you can't nail down an exact definition beyond "it's an expression" argues in favour of their being limitless and referring to nothing concrete in particular, if they do not actually refer to something specific, to a specific person. If masculine fits you, and you are willing to argue that the definition of masculine has some form of set boundaries, then explain where those boundaries lie.

Originally Posted by Slater

I don't see a contradiction between saying that language evolves over time and saying that for a label to have any utility at all it must, at a given time, have some sort of boundaried meaning. If for instance, we were to say that every person on the planet could reasonably identify as a butch because the label is limitless, then someone identifying as butch tells us nothing whatsoever about them.

What are the boundaries?

Originally Posted by Slater

Certainly there is nothing stopping someone from using a label in a way that is far outside any common usage of the term. But if they do, they won't be able to communicate much of anything about themselves in a way that can be understood by anyone else.

By that argument, then masculine and feminine are useless, limitless terms, since we don't appear to even know what they refer to. If we knew what they referred to, then we'd be able to state it outright.