No, traditionally a patch cable is a cable that you would use in a networking rack to connect (to "patch") from say a network switch to the desk outlets or to another switch. A patch cable would explicitly be NOT a crossover.

The main difference between patch and "normal" is that the former is using stranded conductors and the latter solid conductors.

That makes the patch cable more flexible (physically)

yes, they're typically very short cables connecting things like routers and switches, it does not imply any sort of type of cable or wire.

I have a feeling this is some re-invention of the definitions happening.

It's just a holdover from the telephone networks, where you used a short cable to actually phsyically connect - patch[0] - two lines. Therefore - patch-panel and patch-cord or patch-cable.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/patch

Actually, switch to switch would be a crossover cable (pre auto MDI-X, of course). The rule was a crossover would connect devices of the same type, e.g. computer to computer, hub to hub, switch to switch; and patch for devices of different type, like switch to computer. So if you wanted to just plug a hub into the wall you would use a crossover cable, for example.

I am not sure that I know of any Ethernet (IEEE 802.3) standard cabling which uses solid-core wires rather than twisted-pair stranded wires. I can understand and see that many people consider "structured cabling" to consist of the former, but this article does not seem to mandate that construction, and indeed includes many types of twisted-pair and "patch" cables in the list of acceptable "structured cabling solutions."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structured_cabling

So I believe that, in the realm of Ethernet in particular, "patch" vs. "structured" is not a useful distinction.

Wouldn't most patch cables also be double male ends ?

Also probably a more flexible jacket and thinner. Vs fire resistant / plénum cables for fixed / in wall stuff.