I don't say the traits are exclusive to a gender. I agree there can be masculine women and feminine men (although we'd use different labels in those special cases). It's a spectrum of traits that derives from our prehistoric roles as hunter-gatherers, and from the biological division of labour (women as birthers of babies), but those norms get complicated in sophisticated societies.

Why call an aggressive woman "masculine"? I wouldn't necessarily. Not all acts of aggression have to be associated with masculinity. There are feminine forms of aggression, based on defending children and feuding with fellow women, and so on.

The point is just to have a distinction that captures where certain personality traits can go wrong. The distinction between hyperfeminity and hypermasculinity works as a model of the largescale split between liberals and conservatives on the political spectrum, which overlaps with the split between cosmopolitan, decadent urban areas (big cities), and more traditional, patriarchal, and savage rural ones.

But I don't need that distinction in my political critique. It's a handy shortcut to understand what's really going on, in my view.

"Beer" and "wine" aren't just labels. Are you oblivious to differences in the world? I'm from Canada and I prefer beer, but I made no comment about whether wine is more sophisticated. As these categories are socially constructed by advertisements and Hollywood, of course, wine is indeed associated with the snooty class, and beer with blue-collar workers.

If you're against the use of unfair or misleading labels, that's fine. I think we should try to understand why we're using labels as we are in our search for the best labels. If you're against all labels, that means you're against conceptual generalizations, which means you're against thinking, and thus you'd see no difference between people and animals. If there's no difference, if the labels are useless, why follow the law? Why not act like an animal?