Question: Does our society not have an anti-femininity bias? Men dressing or behaving in a more feminine manner are seen as a threat to masculine power status!

Answer: Our society does not have an anti-femininity bias, but an anti-gender-non-conformity bias with a stronger effect on the male gender. This bias is cross-cultural and likely evolved as a response to men's and women's differing reproductive role.

When you look at the differences between the sexes, you may note the male's greater relative physical strength and the absence of monthly periods, and the female's ability to lactate and bear children. On first sight, these differences might compensate each other, but arguably, the female sex plays a more vital role in the preservation of the human species as the number of females in a given population limits its reproduction rate; to frame it more drastically, men are the expendable sex.

Men's ability to father multiple children with less expenditure but also their resulting lower sexual market-value (abundance of resource decreases market value) and women's greater long-term investment and expenditure while performing the reproductive function (need for protection and provision) lead to the expectation for men to differentiate themselves from the desired & passive sex (female) by becoming the performative, competitive & desiring sex (male). That is, masculinity is traditionally defined by its differentiation from femininity, and hence also its inflexibility (femininity is only constrained as a secondary effect to allow the male to differentiate himself and thus enjoys greater flexibility).

The difference between the sexes drives the need of the male to differentiate himself from the female through feats and achievements, and is arguably the reason men are perceived to be hyper-agentic / hyper-accountable (responsible for both their success and suffering) and women are perceived to be hypo-agentic / hypo-accountable (not quite as responsible for their success and helpless victims of their circumstances). It also explains why men are active in the public sphere, and women in the private sphere (domestic-public gender dichotomy). This need for the male to differentiate himself from the female is also driven by female hypergamy (the counterpart to male polygamy) and at the hormonal level, the effect of testosterone to make males engage in social dominance seeking behaviors (and contrary to popular belief, not aggression and violence). At the genetic level, we may note the greater male variability hypothesis as an expression of greater selection pressure on men which predicts that males display greater trait variability than females, for example when it comes to intelligence, and we may also note the societal tendency to have greater concern for issues affecting women (see also women are wonderful effect and gender bias in moral typecasting and other studies showing biases in favor of women and lack of empathy for men) as an expression of women having the more important role in the preservation of the species.

To quote Tania Reynolds' article on queermajority.com:

"Through the lens of evolution, such a tendency [to instinctively cast men in the role of perpetrator and women in the role of victim] can be associated with reproductive roles. Women set the upper limit on reproduction; all other factors being equal, a group of 10 women and 3 men can produce many more children than a group made up of the opposite gender ratio. With this in mind, it’s not unreasonable to assume that natural selection has favored psychological mechanisms that protect women from harm. If so, our modern minds may possess relics of these asymmetric impulses, attuning our thoughts and emotions to more readily insulate women, relative to men, against peril."

At this point, one may also quote Briffault's law, namely that "the female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place". Women's role as child-bearers and child-raisers is the primary role, men's role only develops in a way to optimally support women in that role; one might say that the female is the "primary sex". This can be taken further and may lead to the question: Is our society that is sometimes described as a patriarchy not fundamentally organized in a way to be maximally conducive to child rearing and by extension, the needs of women?

You may also note that those same masculine behaviors that are increasingly criticized in men as toxic masculinity are lauded when they are observed in women (e.g. being a career woman). Similarly, while men are devalued for taking on feminine roles (e.g. being a stay-at-home dad), women are given the choice to do either. This suggests to me that it is not society's devaluing of feminine qualities, but rather enforcement of strict gender roles in men, by both men and women (and more so mothers than fathers).

Notice also how women are not mocked for presenting femininely. Instead, behind this bias lies the idea that men can never truly be women or fill a woman's role which results in the greater rigidity of the male gender role. There is a societal tendency to punish men for deviating from their social roles. Holding men to these social roles which are detrimental to the individual but beneficial to the group interest, like engaging in dangerous work to procure resources and providing protection to women and children, is done through disparaging feminine qualities in men; at the psychological level, this manifests as ridicule and hostility, for there must be something wrong with a male to lower himself to the status of a female (women have "intrinsic value", men must prove themselves through feats and achievements), for he can never attain what makes it unnecessary for the female to participate in the masculine competitive culture that is glorified in human civilizations as a social bribe for men to risk their own well-being in return for resources to attract opposite-sex partners.

Quoting Dr. Warren Farrell:

"Regarding a boy as a hero is a social bribe that we created; a social bribe for that boy to be disposable. […] Love is blind enough for him to never acknowledge that a woman who falls in love with the officer and a gentleman is attaching her love in part to his potential disposability. […] For parents raising a daughter meant caring about her safety but raising a boy meant being caught between a parental rock and a hard place. We wanted our son to be safe, for sure, but we also wanted to feel proud that he served his country in time of war. So whether as a soldier, a firefighter or another first responder we give social bribes for young men to die; why? So that his potential for death might increase our potential for life."

This can also explain why people use gender specific slurs that hint at the person's perceived similarity with the other gender to paint them as aberrant, not fulfilling their designated gender role (casting them as an outsider) and implying they won't have success with the opposite sex, and it can also explain the reason gay men and trans women are more likely the victims of violence and harassment than lesbian women and trans men. It all serves one purpose: upholding the rigidity of the male gender role to serve society, the superorganism, at large.

Similarly, most hate against trans women is not misogyny; rather it is misandry, because the transgender woman is perceived as "just a man in a dress", a creepy man seeking to harm women and gain protections and benefits meant for women by impersonating them. To quote another Redditor I debated with:

"Alok Vaid-Menon has spoken avidly (and done research into the gender constructs of fashion and bodies) about the fact that despite being non-binary, they receive daily harassment based on the idea that they're "just a man in a dress" as opposed to being the gender fluid person they are."

Blaire White and Theryn Meyer agree with this view in their article on xtramagazine.com:

"White says after living part of her life as a man and part as a woman, she believes she unequivocally receives more societal privilege as a woman than a man. She says as a woman people are kinder, care more about her feelings, and are more willing to sacrifice on her behalf.

“I’ve been able to first-hand empirically experience the way people treat you and the experiences you have, and the difference in life,” she says. “There’s an age-old conversation about where the grass is really greener. I think trans people can really answer that question.”

Meyer shares White’s view that trans women are abused and criticized not because of their apparent femininity but because they are seen as “failed men.” She thinks transphobia against trans women stems from the hatred of men who do not live up to strict social standards of maleness — in her words, misandry.

“I receive that level of transphobia when I’m perceived as a man, not when I’m perceived as a woman,” Meyer says. “So in my mind, and in any logical person’s mind, that would be misandry. A man who wants to beat me up in an alleyway, or a woman who calls security when they see you in the washroom, they see you as a man — a perverted, or broken or fucked up man, but a man nonetheless. Feminists would tell you that it’s because these perpetrators see these people as effeminate men, and therefore it’s misogyny. It’s still misandry, because they’re still perceived as men.”"