Men Ignorance

No, masculinity is not made up. Nor is femininity.
The reason men don't cry so much is it achieves much less for us (can hinder us) than it might achieve for a woman. A soft woman, if she's attractive, is deemed in need of being cared for. A soft man is deemed in need of being put in to care.

I disagree, I think there are many aspects of masculinity and femininity that are made up, many facets of them are cultural constructs. I think it's about how people are raised and the environment they're living in.

You weren't talking about if 'aspects' of masculinity are made up. You were talking about if masculinity itself is made up. It's not made up. Men have testosterone and sperm. It sexually/emotionally drives some/many of us. Environment can temper or magnify this but nowadays what effect our persona has on a large number of people seems to be most people's concentration. So environment plays less of a part than it used to. People are now very familiar, for good and bad, in quickly working out if they are in agreement or disagreement with someone in their environment. Decades/centuries ago they would have been far more likely to be, or to want to be, in universal agreement with everyone in their environment because they then relied far more on their immediate environment for financial and emotional nurturing and stability.
Isn't the logical conclusion of what you said that people could be made gay, or made heterosexual, by their environment? I'd accept that people could be more likely to sympathise with gay people, or with heterosexual, people, or to adopt their patterns of expression by being in their environment, but I wouldn't say that fundamentally changes their innate masculinity or innate femininity (which I'm not confusing with sexuality but it's a similar principle). How we 'act' is not what we actually are.

No, masculinity is not made up. Nor is femininity.
The reason men don't cry so much is it achieves much less for us (can hinder us) than it might achieve for a woman. A soft woman, if she's attractive, is deemed in need of being cared for. A soft man is deemed in need of being put in to care.

The ideals regarding masculinity are social constructs. How men are meant to behave are conditioned by our society's conjecture. I think there are many factors that contribute to the sexuality of a person. The environment and all of what a person sees and experiences inspires a person's persuasion on this matter. I can't really subscribe to any other clear way that someone can turn out heterosexual or homosexual other than what the environment informs an individual. What we are can be malleable depending on the conditions of our experiences and the people surrounding us if there are any people at all.

However the logical conclusion of what you said is that there'd be nothing morally wrong for a society to create conditions in which it specifically aims to result in heterosexuals. A truly malleable person would not be being a socialistic person if they refuse to try to be heterosexual.

The 1950s called. It wants its pseudoscience back.

That's not what I'm saying is true. It's just the conclusion that would derive if what JDINCINERATOR said is true. Which is why I'm implying that what they said is not true.