People who use the term "toxic masculinity" will always be perceived by others as wailed misandry, just as "toxic [target demographic] would get perceived as so

People who use the term "toxic masculinity" will always be perceived by others as wailed misandry, just as "toxic [target demographic] would get perceived as some form of wailed -ism. Bringing an association between a strongly negative stereotype of an a demographic is an invitation for harm. A litmus test I often use in politics is to switch the target demographic of a negative stereotype with one of the opposite side of the political spectrum. It usually show if a phrase, term or statement is acceptable or an -ism. In the case of feminism, switching the target demographic of "men" with "immigrants" and "women" with "natively born" works pretty well. Someone talking about "toxic immigrants", listing points of negative stereotypes of immigrants, and it would enlist feelings of racism. One can have a level discussion about crime, theft, murder or rape, but if it get associate directly to a discussion about toxic immigrants then what people see is racism. People can write "It's not all immigrants!" as much as they want and it won't change a thing. People will see it as an attack and rush to defend themselves. The only thing talking about "toxic masculinity" results in is harm, as has been demonstrated every single time it get discussed here on HN.