I've been thinking about something regarding traditional gender roles and modern gender theory, and it seems to me that they're closer than most people are willing to admit.

My argument is this: if being a man or a woman is determined by biology, why do we need a second layer called "masculinity" and "femininity"?

Many people who defend traditional gender roles argue that masculinity naturally derives from being male and femininity naturally derives from being female. However, those same people often talk about men who have "lost their masculinity," need to "reconnect with their masculine energy," or must learn how to be masculine.

This is where I see a contradiction.

If masculinity necessarily follows from being male, how can it be lost in the first place? And if it can be lost, regained, taught, trained, or developed, then it seems we're talking about something separate from the biological fact of being a man.

At that point, aren't we already distinguishing between biological sex and a second category related to behaviors, traits, expectations, or identity?

Ironically, that appears much closer to the idea that sex and gender are distinct concepts than many defenders of traditional gender roles would like to admit.

My own view is simpler: a man is a man because he is male, and a woman is a woman because she is female. Traits such as leadership, empathy, sensitivity, discipline, courage, ambition, or competitiveness are human traits, not masculine or feminine ones.

So my question is: where does this reasoning go wrong? Am I missing something, or is there a genuine tension in the traditional view of masculinity and femininity?