Toxic masculinity is an antisocial behaviour attributed to masculine traits, such as being physically violent, not acknowledging one’s emotions, etc. 

Toxic femininity is an antisocial behaviour that is attributed to feminine traits, such as reputational destruction, gossiping negatively behind other people’s backs, etc. 

These antisocial toxic behaviours are scientifically observed in higher frequencies on each gender. The problem with the current definitions provided by savin-williams is that it does not reflect the current behavioural sciences. Instead, it mentions traditional straight relationships as a problem while It’s not. 

These antisocial behaviours, such as violence, reputational destruction and gossiping are very toxic, and they can be attributed to each respective gender with behavioural scientific literature, while the other definitions provided by savin-williams is just theoretical B.S that doesn’t fit toxicity that people experience on a daily basis (work, in a relationship, school, etc). 

The toxicity felt by most from women is gossiping, while the toxicity felt by most from men is violence, and this is known by everyone who’s lived in highly active social environments.Yes, there are instances where it’s the opposite, but they still relate to feminine and masculine traits. For example, a man who gossips is more feminine than a man who doesn’t. 

The way one is toxic stems from gender and/or gender affinities. Not without it. The current definitions don’t reflect what people live on a daily basis. Instead, it incorporates the modern feminists “patriarchy” theory, and it doesn’t reflect the ongoing toxic behaviours observed on each respective gender. 

These current definitions are not helping in identifying properly these antisocial behaviours done by both respective genders, and I feel frustrated to see these definitions plastered all over the internet by justice warriors.