In Angela Carter's 1977 book "The Passion of New Eve," it is posited that all of femininity is a simulacra, and that the most feminine of all would be one without the presumed signified components. The most motherly of us would be barren, the most elegant of us would be entirely forced. The most profilifically adored, that is, those most adored under the identity technology of profilicity where the construction of a profile triumphs over the embodiment of a genuine sign (sincerity) or the embodiment of the self (authenticity) would live a life of "solitude and melancholy". The character representing this being obviously a transgender actress Tristessa de St Ange.
Carter's novel, predating the popular terminology of Simulacra and Simulations does not use any such words to describe femininity, and, in fact, it is the case that my understanding of later postmodern concepts such as the definition of the word simulacra comes from my understanding of the gender theory of Angela Carter.
While femininity is portrayed something representing something that isn't real, masculinity is almost always portrayed as and supported by physical violence. I believe it to be the case that the identity technologies of women became more advanced as a result of inequality. Men, accustomed to their place in the patriarchy, have refused to develop the concept of masculinity until very recent years, when equality became more widespread. We see this now in the bimodal distribution of identity technologies.
One of these clusters is identified by "being," the other "doing." It is my belief that the identity structure of "being" belongs to the andros (distinct from men of biological or hormonal sex, those who partake in masculinity) and "doing" belongs to the gynos (distinct from women of biological or hormonal sex). I believe that andro and gyno natures are related to gender, but not to sexuality. In fact, I believe that most people are transgender in some way, though maybe not to the point of medical transition, hence the distinction of transsexual.
In the case of the andros, "being" is a process by which you exist. You are the sum of all symbols which can be owned. It is what I would call "Old Sincerity" or perhaps simply "Sincerity" to distinguish it from "New Sincerity." Critically, a symbol can only be owned if it exists, and such existence is increasingly rare in the current time. I believe this to be the origin of the crisis of masculinity we're facing; boys grow up into men with an outdated identity technology that's not suited for the current world. There is nowhere to simply "be" today unless you are extremely lucky. Owning a house is a way to sincerely conform to the patriarchal standardard an andro might set for themselves. Having a good job, and a happy, stable, glass-jar-never-changing family is a sign of a strong andro, and none of these are things that can change.
The gynos on the other hand, are concerned with "doing." We are the sum of all symbols that can be invoked. Depending on where the stress is placed in this, you can arrive at "Authenticity" or either of the responses to it, "New Sincerity" or "Profilicity." Critically, the gyno concept doesn't allow access to the stability of Old Sincerity because of environmental factors. The gyno must be "themselves" as a goal or whatever performance of themselves they would like others to see, whether that performance is rooted in a traditional singular role (New Sincerity) or a performance of many subroles that you broadcast out (Profilicity).
This then brings me to the thought that started all of this. With this understanding of the world, could it be true that I do not exist in the eyes of an andro? Am I potentially, too gyno to conform to a world dominated by "being" since I do so much "doing"? Similarly, then, from that perspective, do I see a similar lack of existence in the andros around me? Possibly, and in fact, it is even likely that I have denied my denial of their reality thus far.