One irony is that the skeptics are ordinarily sexless men (Oxbridge philosophers have that reputation,* even if I have it on good authority – his own leer – that Blackburn flouts the rule), and women who think sex is essentially a crime. Masculinity and femininity do us no favors, so of course we’d stand opposed.
But say, notwithstanding their conflict of interest, the skeptics are right and the concepts really are bankrupt. Assume, in other words, that he’s masculine (or she’s feminine, or vice versa) has scant descriptive power (indicates very little about a person’s characteristics), and – to the extent it does describe – is not a consideration in favor of his or her company. It then follows that the deliberately hyper-masculine are unduly concerned with cosmetics.
This is another humorous result.
* A connotation, for example, of Auden’s ditty:
Oxbridge philosophers, to be cursory,
Are products of a middle-class nursery
Their doctrines are anent
What nanny really meant.