system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: Phrases like "toxic masculinity" and "white fragility," while describing real and problematic social issues, are unnecessarily divisive and incendiary and should be replaced with less offensive sounding terms.

These kinds of phrases are generally used by the left. And I find this odd, because the left is otherwise *very* concerned with using and even policing language that merely *might* be perceived as offensive or off putting. These are people who use wordings like "people who menstruate" to avoid possibly offending the small minority of trans men who have periods, or "people of color" to help emphasize personhood before race, and in my short lifetime have coined half a dozen different terms for "mental illness" to make it as soft a label as possible. In short, the left generally seems *very* concerned about ensuring language is used in such a way that it rubs as few people the wrong way as possible. 

Yet all this seems to go out the window when it comes to men and white people. Terms like "white fragility" or "toxic masculinity" follow the opposite pattern: they seem to be deliberately crafted to be inflammatory and cause shock and offense among the people they are applied to. Again, **i do believe they describe real phenomena,** but the way they're termed seems almost guaranteed to put whites and men off from wanting to have the conversation in the first place, particularly when its not whites or men using the terms while addressing whites or men. 

For example, similar to toxic masculinity, its not exactly controversial to say there are some negative cultural aspects within the black community practiced and reinforced by black folks that work to the detriment of black folks and those they interact with. Even if you don't believe this is the case just grant it for the sake of argument; not even the most insane, tone deft progressive in the world would think its advisable to term this phenomenon "toxic blackness" and then send in white people to criticize black folks for their "toxic blackness." Such a thing would be *immediately* recognized by progressives as problematic, counterproductive, and a good way to turn black folks off from the conversation before it even begins. 

Its my view that terms like "toxic masculinity" or "white fragility" should be seen the same way. While I'm sure that the mere shock value alone has caused some white folks or men to pay attention it seems to me it drives far more of them away and unnecessarily predisposes them to be against the concept before they even hear what it is. To take an extreme hyperbolic example you could observe a very real and pressing social issue among X demographic, but if you decide to call it "X people are little whiney-ass bitches" you're gonna create shock value, but you're also gonna turn off 90% of X demographic from wanting to discuss the issue simply by virtue of how you named it.
gpt
You don't actually explain why you find "toxic masculinity" or "white fragility" to be inflammatory, except by an analogy that you don't get around to justifying. Can you explain more directly why you think these terms are inflammatory? (Or, alternatively, explain why your analogy is applicable.)