Interesting how many takes there are in this theme. I feel a masculine person defines themselves by how they feel or are inclined to act and their competence at activities especially physical ones but also mental activities which translate into action. They are more concerned with achieving their goals and assoiate themselves with the outcome more than the impact the achievement or the process of achieving it may have on others. They are less concerned with others impressions unless those feelings have a chance of impacting them personally.
Feminity on the other hand is more concerned with the outward appearance of something, including their own personal appearance, than the so called inherent properties or quantitative quality of the object or process. At the same time a feminine person is concerned with other people's reaction to outcomes, goals and processes. They will work to achieve an outcome but will be more likely to accommodate others even if those others can't directly oppose or thwart them. They are more likely to recognise the contributions and preferences of others.
Things like the way people move, talk and socialize are a cultural artifact without imho a direct or unavoidable relationship to male and female. A lot of what we attribute to gender either physical or behavioural is again imho superimposed on them by our expectations (attribution bias).
The fundamental issue in male vice female is not behavior, appearance, or personality so much as the near universal assumption that 'male' is better or preferred or serves as the baseline by which everything gender and social is measured and at the same time these gender boundaries and impact these imposed, regimented role has on each of us is ignored. Women, if allowed, can assume the so called male role, act like men and, their bodies not withstanding 'be men'. Males likewise could fulfill in every way the 'woman's' role if society, male and female, did not look upon this with distaste.
