If you replaced "males" in that sentence with ... well, let's be honest here, pretty much any other category, the statement would likely be deemed entirely unacceptable and the comment censored (ie [flagged][dead]) in short order.
Regardless of how the statistics for that specific set of behaviors break down my personal experience is that both the application and acceptance of such terminology (ie referring to various sets of behaviors which it might make sense to group together based on whatever metric) is highly selective in a manner that's convenient for the party expressing it. The statement is often true but the grouping superfluous, included only (seemingly) to push an agenda.
In this specific discussion, the traits labelled as toxic masculinity were as follows:
> You’re not allowed to feel things. Emotions make you weak. Just suck it up and power through. Bottle it up.
The person who most embodies these traits for me, in my life, is...my mum. I don't view them as exclusively toxic any more than I view them as exclusively masculine, either. Sometimes you really do just choose to hug your kids even when they were aggravating little twits five minutes ago and you're still mad at them, and that's a good thing.
> The group of traits often described by "toxic masculinity" are overwhelmingly displayed only by males, so... it makes sense?
Even supposing that were true, why does it make sense to invent and use a discriminatory label for a whole group? You just assert that without justification. Is that acceptable in any other context or for any other group? Do we speak of toxic blackness, or toxic femininity, or toxic Islam?
Crime is also overwhelmingly associated with race. Intelligence quotient as well. We don’t characterize race by statistical facts because we would offend the outliers.
I think it’s important to follow etiquette in common language rather then label entire minorities or groups based off of statistics.
There is a correlation between crime and race. Also Race and poverty. The causal association has yet to be determined but the correlative association exists.
But there is no corresponding discussion of "toxic femininity", or if there is, it is that discussion is framed as more "toxic masculinity" from the "manosphere".
It's a term used to apply guilt across all males to subvert any actual debate.
The term is overused. Females have extremely toxic behavior as well. But the term toxic feminist is not used to label them. It’s nowhere near as extreme.
It's strange. Clearly at some point society at large came to believe that the current crop of terms at the time was undesirable. Yet various modern analogues are treated differently.
Depends on what you mean by polite company, I think. I'm sure there are a lot of conversations among men, who are polite to each other, talking about women being on their periods or hysterical or whatever. Is that no longer the norm? My friend group doesn't do it but given the rhetoric we've seen on HN and elsewhere "locker room talk" is still a thing.
I don't think you'd need to be similarly selective about the phrase "toxic masculinity" at least on average. Hopefully you see the point I'm trying to make?
Of course it's also possible that I live in a slightly different bubble than you do.
If you aren't someone who displays that specific bundle of traits/behaviors, I would suggest being stoic about it and not taking the term personally.