I'm GC leaning but not fully GC. I do think that every society has parameters for how they expect men and women to act, which could be defined as "masculinity" and "femininity". I think these can be more or less constrictive (eg: the range of acceptable ways to be a woman in Sweden vs. Yemen). And obviously there is a lot of variance, in that if you asked someone from a Masai tribe in Kenya, an office worker in Tokyo, a deeply religious man from the Bible Belt, a deeply religious man from Saudi Arabia, an office worker from Helsinki, a Thai rice farmer, etc etc to describe a "feminine woman" you would get WIDELY different responses.

Where I differ from mainstream radfem thought is that I don't think we can ever completely eliminate gender. While gender as a culturally dictated set of social roles, appearances, and behaviors can vary greatly from society to society, from everything I've seen, every society has some concept of "gender". We're a dimorphic species. We've been selecting for humans that can perform these dimorphic roles (men that become dads and women that become moms) for millennia. There will always be certain roles and appearances that signal to society "I'm a female human that would be a good choice as a mother" and vice versa for men, and the people who fulfill those roles and appearances are more likely to reproduce more humans that are more like them. I believe this is also why every society is a patriarchy (I have yet to hear of a true matriarchy outside of some tiny tribes, every major society and civilization is patriarchy). Of course, there will always be people who don't want to or are unable to perform these roles. There are people who are gay/lesbian, and people that want to present themselves as the opposite sex. But they aren't rewarded by society for this, so it'll always be an uphill battle. At best you have some societies that introduce a "third gender" for men, but that's just because not as many men are needed for reproduction so having some men not involved in reproduction isn't that big a deal. This is also why I believe the current debate around trans rights focuses almost exclusively around trans women. Trans men don't exist to most people, GC ignores them, QT ignores them. Ultimately society always goes back to what to do with these men who aren't needed for reproduction.

I do think humans can distance ourselves to an extent. As I mentioned, think of women in Sweden in Finland. They are still subject to patriarchy but nowhere near on the level most women worldwide are. However, if you asked people in Sweden and Finland, I'm pretty sure they would still have a concept of "femininity" that involves being a woman that signals fertility/motherhood in her clothing and behavior. I think we can loosen the chains of gender greatly, but I'm not yet convinced we can entirely eliminate them considering the inherent dimorphic nature of the species and the inequality in terms of physical capabilities, and also the disproportionate burden on women when it comes to reproduction. I think those material realities of biology will always influence society and the way humans interact.