Thanks for answering.

I agree that the way women and men walk is heavily influenced by our pelvic anatomy, as well by our different centers of gravity. But I don't see these differences as expressions of "femininity" and "masculinity" - aka gender - which is what I thought you meant when you referred to "masculine and feminine traits." I see these differences as linked to biology - aka sex.

Similarly, I see the very different ways that babies, toddlers, kids, adolescents, adults, the elderly, and people with various physical disabilities all walk as being mainly functions of physiology rather than conditioning. But where conditioning does come in to play and it does explain - or help explain - the different ways that people of different ages and different bodies walk, the conditioning is not necessarily conditioning that's meant to make people more masculine or feminine. It's conditioning to help people remain upright, to stay safe from falling over and bumping into things, and to move efficiently so that effort and energy are preserved and you don't constantly end up with body aches and pulled muscles. Conditioning, in other words, for other purposes.

In cultures where girls/women are highly indoctrinated by "sexy" and sexualized "gender" norms, yes some women learn to walk with a pronounced hip wiggle, or to glide through space in a way that would allow them to carry a book or filled glass atop their heads as girls in Western "finishing schools" used to be taught to do. In those cases, these sorts of learned behaviors can be viewed as the result of conditioning meant to get female humans to be "feminine" specifically.

Similarly, men who've learnt to walk with their chests puffed out, their shoulders squared back, their spines ramrod straight, their pelvis titled a certain way, etc as they often must do as part of military training and athletics deportment - that's conditioning too, conditioning that could be said to inculcate "masculinity."

At the same time, however, women in pretty much all cultures/locales walk in very distinctively female ways during the later stages of pregnancy and when we're holding a child (or two) braced against our hips or held to our breasts. These obvious gait changes are IMO because of female physiology, the extra weight we're carrying, and how it's distributed - not because of conditioning. And definitely not because of conditioning to be "feminine" - particularly not as today's genderists define femininity.

Fact is, conforming to "femininity" according to the genderists' conception of it would NOT mean walking and moving in the distinctly female ways billions of women across planet earth wal/move every as a matter of course: such as standing and walking for hours on end bent over rice paddies or farming plots, often with a baby or two in a sling on their backs; walking for miles each day with huge jugs or canisters of water, or other heavy goods, perched atop their heads; hauling heavy serving trays on their shoulders balanced by a bent arm underneath; or carrying huge loads of firewood on their backs for miles, loads that are so heavy the women are bent over so far that their faces are parallel with the ground and they can't straighten their spines even when the weight is taken off their backs ...

That's how real women all over the world walk every day. But none of 'em would be considered "feminine" ways of walking by anyone's view - particularly not in the narrow view of today's genderists in the parts of the world where regressive Western-influenced gender ideology has become entrenched. The way they see it, being "feminine" means prancing about in spike heels and wriggling and giggling like porn stars, sexed-up Instagram influencers, and the thoroughly scripted sex symbols of the silver screen era - not like the vast majority of actual flesh and blood women on earth today as well as in the past.

Even when the different behaviors and traits that can be observed in the two sexes are, in fact, partly, largely or entirely due to learning or conditioning, I am leery about saying this is always the result of conditioning specifically meant for the express purpose of making people "masculine" or "feminine," particularly in the narrow way that today's gender ideologues define these descriptors.