As someone else said, in order for a man/woman to be "real" someone needs to be fake. A lot of people make these grand sweeping proclamations that a "real man" takes care of his "family" or people he cares about, is "strong" (whatever that means), stands by his values, doesn't hurt the helpless but "defends" them, and blah blah blah chivalry. For example, when a man is revealed to have beaten his wife/girlfriend/child, raped someone, murdered someone and so on certain people scream out that he was not a "real man" that he is "ball-less" and so on and so forth.
Yet none of these people realise or even begin to question how this culture of calling people "real men" or "real women" creates the insecure masculine/male identity that drives those who commit these crimes. That the same outright, in your face misogyny present in a physical or sexual assault committed by a man against a woman, is a reflection of the underlying misogyny still present in our societies. The very creation of the standard "real man," whether he is "macho" or "chivalrous" creates a standard for men to live up to, and failing to do so condemns them to "not being a real man."
But if he isn't a "real man" no matter what he's done, then what is he? A fake man? When was the last time you saw a woman charged with physically or sexually assaulting someone who was condemned by the public to being "not a real woman." If she's abused or harmed her children, then people will cry out that she is a disgrace of a mother with no maternal instinct (the horrors!), which is, in our society, the essence of "real woman": mother, wife, caregiver. There is a reason why the phrase "real man" is more prevalent in our society than "real woman." Because, for most people, not being a "real man" means you're a "coward," and in colloquial speech the man is then called a "fag," a "pussy," a "pansy" etc. All words which, in most societies, suggest that if he is not a "real man," then he is feminine or womanly and therefore cowardly. People only tend to refer to "real women" as far as a woman's sex appeal, her ability to take care of her children (thus leaving female gender roles linked to childbearing and motherhood) and her family. A woman who is brave is a woman who is brave, she is not a "real woman" because there is no standard of bravery for women in our society. There is no standard of conviction for women, the way there is with men.
In general, this whole "real man," "real woman" stuff is sexist, heterosexist, cissexist, ableist and in certain respects even racist (as far as the way Western society even today continues to "gender" certain "races.") as far as the creation of standards of "masculinity" and "femininity."
As such, I would say there is no such thing as a "real man" or "real woman." There are, as someone else also mentioned, only men, women and the variety of those who identify as neither/both/etc. "Man-ness" is not directly related to your actions, your values, how you treat others. "Woman-ness" is no way related to your actions, your values, how you treat children.
The other thing is, why do we feel the need to gender positive or negative behaviour? If a person does something atrocious, why do they have to be "less of a man"? Why can't they simply be a "real man" who has done something atrocious? Why is it socially acceptable to threaten his identity as a man? Well, I know why...but the point is that such standards are something ridiculous and reprehensible in and of themselves.
