I’ve been studying demographics for a while. When a given society hits an economic level unique to them, suddenly their birthrate drops from high growth to sustainable, which is 2.1 to 2.3 children per family.
Mexico and the Arab nations are the most recent to see this phenomenon.
However, while government and culture are not particularly able to increase the birthrate, they can lower it further, by encouraging sex outside of marriage, birth control, and abortion, as well as raising the standards for raising children.
This is unrelated, however, to more masculine women.
Women do have a small amount of testosterone in their blood. But those women with a more than average amount are able to develop their musculature faster, and they are more prone to assertiveness.
However, the most noteworthy aspect of having more than the average amount of testosterone is that women “enjoy sex more.” Both in frequency and pleasure. As such, they are more likely to get pregnant in the absence of birth control.
And being physically fit, again unless they overdo it, makes them somewhat more fertile.
I suggest that you watch the documentary “Demographic Winter.” At the end of it, a professional demographer—who is a progressive, mind you—said that the only solution to the problem of declining birthrates was “patriarchy, properly understood.”
By the way, what you say isn’t entirely accurate. While Saudi Arabia has long been very wealthy, their birthrate is still quite high. This is because they have maintained patriarchy. (Of course, this doesn’t mean that I endorse their brand of patriarchy.)
Anyway, if you don’t see how feminism and the masculinization of females has twisted women, you don’t have your finger on the pulse of Western civilization.
By the way, a woman dressed in traditionally masculine garb (e.g., military or police uniform) is no different than a man dressed in drag. It’s just that people have been conditioned to accept it.