G - thank you for the explanation. it is practically poetry itself. your writing is very effective - both the poems and the prose.
your explanation makes sense to me on one level. if i accept all the definitions and terms that you seem to assume, it is perfectly logical and has an internal consistency.
however, i question some of those assumptions. the biggest difference i have with what you've said is your implied definition of "male." maybe i am wrong - and jumping to conclusions - if so, forgive me for reading my own conditioning into your situation. but if you define maleness as strong, silent, self-sufficient, insensitive, driven, macho, muscular, then i have major problems with that - and would say - congratulations on NOT identifying with that fake, dishonest, unreal, harmful stereotype.
the next objection is the implications of "counterfeit." just because you don't fit that sterotype does not mean you are not valuable - conterfeit means a worthless imitation. that is not what i see in your writing. i see authenticity. i see wounded strength. i see genuine compassion and determination and endurance. that to me sounds like a worthwhile human - regardless of the gender labels and preconceptions.
"the scariest thing about abuse of any shape or form, is, in my opinion, not the abuse itself, but that if it continues it can begin to feel commonplace and eventually acceptable."
- Alan Cumming, "Not My Father's Son"