We tend to think of Masculine and Feminine as attributes of a particular sex, which is natural, as that's where the stereotypes stem from. Because there is stereotyping going on, this becomes offensive to some as they perceive a particular statement to be demeaning. It's like calling something a "chick flick" or a "girl's car" and that such phraseology has, obvious, negative connotations.
But this isn't always the case and, historically, artists and philosophers have used the terms to communicate the same qualities, but divorced of sex. Plato, perhaps the world's first feminist, albeit a flawed one, was I believe the first to raise this notion. Prior to Plato, gender and sex were inextricably linked. Women were, by their very nature, an embodiment of a certain set of characteristics and men another. It was inconceivable that these roles would ever be breached. Plato felt that while sex (in his time) was definitive (you have the anatomy you have) that gender was not. Furthermore, it existed on a sliding scale. Something could be purely masculine, purely feminine or somewhere in between. We start to see masculine and feminine enter the lexicon as something that can describe a set of traits, as opposed to a person. This is used to discuss music, occupations, political strategies - it even makes it's way into the grammatical foundation of romance languages. His words for masculine and feminine were to impart that this was a divorce from prior thoughts on sex and societal roles based on sex. People being people, we still argue on that level.
It would be easier if we assigned two new words, one to represent what we traditionally think of as feminine traits (soft, subtle, warm, nurturing, harmonious, etc.) and masculine traits (hard, brash, cold, aggressive, dissonant, etc.), but we didn't so we still use masculine and feminine. But for the purposes of this discussion, they have nothing to do with "men" and "women" and certainly not "men vs. women". Similarly, one set of traits is not "good" while another set of traits is "bad" - that's not what the conversation is about.
With regards to classical music I don't necessarily agree with the OP. I think it's important to keep context in mind. Sure, one might feel that, compared to the Sex Pistols, any "classical" music was more feminine in nature, however within the context of classical music, I think we could also make such distinctions. One might conclude that the music of J.S. Bach, for example, exhibits more feminine traits than say that of Beethoven.
The question that the OP is asking (and it has been asked before him) is wether or not the tools we use to create contribute to a result that is either more masculine or feminine. A very simplistic example of this would be the comparison between drum and flute. If I give one person and drum and another a flute, does it follow that the individual with a drum will create more masculine sounding music than the person with the flute (and we are talking about the generality, not the exception)? As I said, that's a very simplistic example, a less simplistic example might be to compare the tools of the sculptor to that of the painter. A more complex one might be to compare working environments of artists in a similar style.
Lastly, the conversation is meant to serve as a springboard to larger notions of how we imbibe art with certain traits (either consciously or unconsciously) and what factors (of which tools are a part) play a role in that.
So, for example, does the use of a large format camera, a tool which, for most people, (and I say that because I can already hear Fred's oft invoked response) lends itself to a different photographic approach, result in photographs that have a more masculine set of traits or feminine set of traits?
I still don't have a lot of time (today at least) to contribute to the thread, but I hope this helps somewhat to guide the discussion back on track.
To get back to Stefano's last post in the thread "does any of it matter", some would say yes, some would say no. This is a discussion, ultimately, about philosophy in art. Some people enjoy such discussions, some don't. Some feel they foment greater understanding, others couldn't care less. I suppose the value of the conversation is determined by the participants. If such discussions are not one's cup of tea, perhaps they should avoid them (not referring to Stefano here, just speaking in a general sense). As with any philosophical discourse, there is no "good" or "bad".
I would posit that it is of benefit to the artist. If we accept that art doesn't simply mirror culture, but that it helps guide and define it, then perhaps such conversations are worthwhile. If, for example, one feels that a particular society or culture has become too "masculine" and that such an approach has led to less than positive outcomes (increased wars, greed, bullying, etc.), then perhaps the artist might wish to reflect that, or, in a greater sense, try to change that by producing work that is more feminine in nature. The same could be said at the other extreme. It's just a thought. Is it any wonder that Hitler chose Wagner as the music of the Reich, for example? How does art influence and shape society and how does a feminine approach influence and shape a society vs a masculine approach? This is a much broader question, the OP has decided to start with a small slice of it - do tools influence outcome.
I was talking in a internet community about the previous topic and most people there could not understand what I mean by masculine and feminine. But Giacomo Cirrinoni helped me explaining it to the others and I will quote him here: