https://www.canadiangeographic.ca/article/reverse-colonialism-how-inuit-conquered-vikings

Nah, that thinking only works in a universe of moral relativism. God didn’t design men to be feminine, this is an aberration — an act of sabotage against our kind. It’s not arbitrary. You should know masculine and feminine from one another, and know to which sex each belongs. This should be a basic platitude. Only because people are warped is it not.

Wow great job butchering the quote. First, the last two sentences aren’t even in the original text. Second, it is NOT implying there are more than five colors/five tones, interpreting it that way is completely wrong. Ancient Chinese distinguished 5 basic colors, and the music system (pentatonic) only had 5 distinct pitches. It means hearing/seeing all five at once, they are all blending together, and one cannot be distinguished from the others. Thus you are blind/deaf because you can’t identify what you are looking at/hearing. Ever mixed all the colors together at once? It makes brown. Every played all the tones at once? It sounds like trash. You clearly have never read the entire book (which fundamentally is about being able to distinguish categories) or rely on some basement-dwelling hipster’s translation from tumblr.

Face it, leftism/atheism has been met with disdain by anyone with a functioning brain for the past several thousand years, even by guys who were relatively “liberal” for their time (like Laozi).

五色令人目盲；五音令人耳聾；五味令人口爽… (Laozi ch. 12)
Literally, “The five colors make men’s eyes blind; the five tones make men’s ears deaf; the five flavors make men’s mouth numb.”
I don’t know who the hell you are quoting but it isn’t Laozi. This is the passage in question, and there is no word in there that means ‘only’. So again you are either making stuff up or quoting some meme translator who is making stuff up. And why are you asking me what book it is? There’s only one book attributed to that man, what other book could it possibly be? The book is also called Daodejing but if you are so familiar with it you should already know it has two names. Anyway Laozi is what would be classified today as a primitivist. He argued that it was the excess of sights, sounds, and tastes that lead to human indecency and wickedness, and advocated that we should abolish them entirely: to remove desire, wealth, expensive things, pretty colors, music, etc. and return to a natural existence. He was not saying that those who saw five colors were burdened with seeing too little, but burdened with seeing too much.

“Where is the mention of this blindness or deafness coming from mixing all five colors/sounds.”
Uhh, common sense? Nobody is stupid enough to think it is saying that each individually causes blindness/deafness, but anyone with experience knows that overwhelming the eyes or the ears causes that. What else could it possibly mean? Where is the mention that this blindness or deafness comes from only seeing/hearing five of them? Zhuangzi talks about it too, “五色亂目，使目不明.” (ch. 15) Literally, “The five colors confuse the eyes, and make the eyes unable to distinguish (them).” Again, it’s not that five colors are not enough, but that they are too much.

Leftism, liberalism and atheism go hand in hand. A basic survey of history reveals just this. Liberalism, whether its supporters know it or not, is a revolution against God, because it substitutes the transcendental with this vague concept of ‘the people’. See the French revolution, one of the first major liberal movements, which was atheistic to the point where it sought to wipe out the clergy and replace the concept of God with the concept of ‘liberty’. Every liberal revolution afterwards was derivative of this, the revolutions of the 19th century sought to overturn the monarchs who ruled by divine right to establish ‘nationalist’ republics. Eventually it peaked with the Russian revolution, which murdered the holy monarch and completely destroyed the clergy, being completely atheist. Leftism is nothing but an umbrella term that, not surprisingly, came out of the French revolution where it was used to denote the liberals, and now includes everything derivative of that original ‘enlightenment’ movement, including socialism, communism, etc. ‘Moderate’ liberalism is nothing but a transitory state, that merely opens the door for more radical elements to rise to prominence. The original Duma in the Russian Empire was started because of liberals, but quickly filled up with communists and anarchists. It’s the same story with liberals who are ‘Christians’ or ‘Muslims’; liberalism fundamentally holds that the individual and ‘the people’ are the most important thing in this world, and that not even God is more important than them. Even if they personally believe in God, then they haven’t done Him any favors by opening the door for actual atheists to inevitably take over.

The reason I put liberal in quotes with regard to Laozi is because, as I said, he was a primitivist, not anything near a liberal, unlike all these dumbass hippies who praise him so much seem to think, nor was he an atheist as liberalism would imply.

Think before you type.
Masculinity and femininity are abstract categories of character traits and behaviours, which have been defined pretty arbitrarily (if only in the sense that the particular choice common here is not universal).
A woman can behave in a masculine manner, a man can have feminine character traits, and vice versa in both cases.