But in all seriousness, we used to have a perfectly sensible name for this: Tomboy. A name that everyone accepted, respected and understood, and which allowed plenty of room for individual variability. No one automatically expected all tomboys to grow up to be bull-dykes either, we all understood it for what it usually was, a phase.
Maybe the problem stems from the fact that there was never any correlative for boys. Girly or gentle boys have almost always been shunned and mocked, and I am sure that pushes many of them into homosexuality, or makes them targets for sexual predators — at the very least they grow up with a grudge against “normal” society. And so we get our next generation of petty tyrants and pajama boys.
I wonder whether having an acceptable name such as tomboy for less-than masculine boys would result in them growing up to be normal, masculine men and not flaming liberals. Maybe we wouldn’t have so many disturbed adults pushing this gender crap, nor kids being warped to believe they’re freaking pan-asexual unicorns instead of just a normal kid going through a phase.
This is the only reason I support anti-bullying measures in schools, theoretically. Not so much the way they are actually inacted. But I have seen for myself how bullying almost always leads to a new crop of maladjusted leftists.
I think just "boy" and "girl" would be fine. Girls have a wide array of interests, activities, and styles, and so do boys.
Once we've mastered this for children, we can try using "man" and "woman" for male and female adults (respectively). Men and women can have a wide array of interests, activities, and styles.