In my opinion, toxic masculinity is a political term, not a solidly scientific one. Whatever the case, the nomenclature definitely does not fit the bill of abject observation associated with science. While the term isn't synonymous with misandry, the very notion contains misandric elements and value judgement. Harm is in the eye of the beholder, especially when it comes to inculturation and socialisation.

It is my firm hope that the public debate can move beyond firmly entrenching further into the male-female dichotomy and start to see all human behaviour as part of a spectrum, where gender norms are clearly understood to be a statistical tendency but not a rule. "Toxic masculinity" does nothing to further that goal.

There are multiple definitions of "toxic masculinity" even in the Wikipedia article you linked. The intended meaning of the term seems to vary from user to user, which I think is one of the reasons people react defensively to it; they're all responding to the most frequent usage of "toxic masculinity" they've heard, which often don't match.

From the Wiki: "In a psychoanalytic context, Terry Kupers describes toxic masculinity as 'the need to aggressively compete and dominate others'".

Is a competitive sports match where both teams are engaged in a spirited attempt to compete and dominate others an example of toxic masculinity? Is it only toxic if the participants feel a 'need' pressured from the outside to participate? What if it's an internal need, and brings them joy? Would a woman needing to compete and dominate others be displaying toxic masculinity? Is competition itself masculine, or toxic? Is a kid who's excited to wake up early every day to play sports displaying "toxic" traits? Already the need for asterisks is present.

Relevant, I think: The Motte & Bailey Argument

https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/03/all-in-all-another-bri...

(Edit: all of the questions I asked aren't meant to be prove the non-existence or non-impact of harmful male-standard behaviors; based on a carefully curated definition of "toxic masculinity", I am thoroughly opposed to it. My point is that upon hearing a single simple definition, all of these relevant questions can be immediately generated, and I doubt all the experts would answer them identically, which I think means there's something wrong with the definition as it stands.)

Of course wanting to win your tennis match / soccer game / ping pong tournament isn't inherently toxic. I don't want to get in a match of word definitions here but the point of the "toxic" part of the term is that it's the part that does harm.

The specific usage that I was trying to point out was not correct which I stand by is the "I assumed from the phrase 'toxic masculinity' that it means 'masculinity is toxic'" and the accompanying weird anti-feminist-backed-by-misguided-logic mindset that seems unfortunately common on HN

You neglected to include the entirety of definition attributed to Terry Kupers... ironically, the part which would make it less simplistic than you make it out to be:

    In a psychoanalytic context, Terry Kupers describes toxic masculinity as "the need to 
    aggressively compete and dominate others" and as "the constellation of socially 
    regressive male traits that serve to foster domination, the devaluation of women, 
    homophobia and wanton violence".

If you're going to criticize the term, fair enough, but don't be disingenuous in doing so. It's obvious from reading that sentence in its entirety that he wasn't defining toxic masculinity as being merely competitive drive in all its forms, absent any relevant context or reference to psychological or social harm.