>>406219
You admit that there's subjectivity in definitions, I would consider that this "subjectivity" refers to acting subjects who live their experiences through subjective, cultural and social coherent schemes, definitions and references. Then you seem to consider that if you can subjectively call a masculine boy cute, it's sort of not as relevant as your own (I guess ?) set of thoughts in which the word "cute" would contradict with anything masculine.
Well, if that isn't already obviously self-contradictory to you. Let me tell you an exemple. "Cute" is an English word, as far as I know indeed, in modern English it would maybe seem hard to call "cute" something masculine, even if I already doubt about that to this point. In French an equivalent to "cute" would be "mignon", which can commonly refer to men depending of the context. It's actually pretty common. Just to show that subjective experiences are shaped by your culture, social interactions, language and personnal life. Then why classifying an other subjective definition than yours to be some sort of less relevant ?… That's merely gatekeeping, and a shitty illusion.