“Perhaps the expression of traits by a male commonly considered female is what fundamentally upsets many, or is not accepted and in need of change or correction because it is felt to be “wrong”.”
Pretty much why I harp on the need to understand ‘gender’ (meaning a type, tribe or sort) and ‘sex’ (i.e., the reproductive ‘sections’ of a species) as separate. It involves the need to see the distinction between the subjective and objective and to realize both can be very real. This allows us to see that there is no contradiction between a male being feminine more than there is between there is between being hard or fuschia. One can be both and colour is mutable. Hardness is usually, well, hard. However, popular ‘knowledge’ has (rather recently) overwhelmed and overridden that distinction. It was, at least in my lifetime, fairly generally accepted at least from about 1400 and 1990. Using ‘feminine’ to mean ‘female’ was actually defined in reputable dictionaries as a ‘jocularity’; probably a form of insult amongst males I assume. The best dictionaries, however, are historical and not authoritative dictionaries and follow etymology and usage. Recently they have been required (in English at least) to conflate the terms creating the impression of a congruency.
In a sense, this also relates to the question of the prevalence of FtM (Feminine-to-Masculine) ‘cross-dressing’ and raises some intriguing issues. My 1% is based on my observation that FtM’s seem relatively rare on-line and I have made hasty searches to seek some anecdotal information of interest. I have seen enough to recognize a distinctive parlance with specific terminology that did not resemble usual, male colloquialisms but were still distinctly masculine.
I was struck but the dearth of FtM’s on-line in contrast to a relative flood of MtF’s. I remember hundreds of websites, probably most gone now. Then the forums. Some people just cannot resist showing off. In most instances, you couldn’t blame them. So I sort of intuit that there were a 1% prevalence of FtM’s amongst females in the North American/West European sphere. Maybe less.
Suppose that, as suggested here, woman wearing supposedly ‘male’ clothing was something that was ‘normalized’ especially in the past 80-years. There would have been some social pressure from the variation of Feminists who existed at the time. I suspect that de Beauvoir’s tome would have never had such a wide reception had not the timing been accurate. That work probably gave rise to the similar works of the late 60s and early 70s. This gave academic and some social attention to gender issues rather than simply sex issues.
So! Suppose we have become inured to the sight of ‘male’ clothing on females. Seems to me that Yves St. Laurent actually made something of that. The ‘feminization’ of ‘male’ clothing has become so ubiquitous that many MtF’s finding the resulting garments quite attractive. Possibly FtM prevalence than objectively exists more frequently than we subjectively perceive. Perhaps it is even a plurality! It might explain, in part, the existence of certain retail clothing stores and the disappearance of others.
These are actually important questions! I find it startling that there are no objective studies available. Or maybe they are. I stopped looking a couple of years ago.