I have no idea if this nomenclature is used by anyone anymore. It probably is, because so many things survive longer than one would think necessary or possible.
The underlying implication of masculine=strong, feminine=weak is one I accepted at face value forty years ago. I was a student, eager to learn. Years of creating cadences of all kinds, though, has led me to a very different experience of this dichotomy. I find that a cadence that concludes on the strong beat can almost always be strengthened by being moved to the succeeding offbeat, creating a cadential syncopation.
In metered music, I experience arrival points that coincide with downbeats as blunt, which is not the same as strong. They land where we expect them, which can be satisfying in some circumstances. Cadences that skip past the downbeat and land on the weak beat, though, get the benefit of providing two emphasized beats in a row – downbeat and resolution — which to me usually translates into twice the power.
I suppose some people might consider bluntness a masculine characteristic, but I don’t see why that would have to be the case. And possibly the two-beat cadence, where the second beat is strengthened, could be given a sexual designation as well. I have no idea what that would accomplish; in fact, I suspect it would be counterproductive in at least some ways.
But if anyone is still convinced the masculine-feminine designations are worth something when discussing cadences, my advice is to spend several decades creating them. And while they are at it, they should interact with a lot of humans. At that point, they might find the dichotomy is not so clear.