system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: Attacking toxic masculinity is not an attack on masculinity itself nor on all men

Searching on this reddit I'm seeing CMVs talking about how the term toxic masculinity is terrible concept, but I'm actually searching to have my viewed changed in the opposite direction. Not necessarily to view toxic masculinity as bad, but right now, I see criticisms of the term toxic masculinity as it pertains to masculinity as ridiculous. 

I find the whining about how 'oh no, now I can't be a man' as ridiculous. 

I know with masculinity someones gonna bring up 'toxic' femininity. And you know what, it exists, and I don't feel my 'womanhood' is being attacked. I can disagree on what bad and good is, and sure, we can discuss what is 'toxic' and what isn't, but that's not the issue. You can disagree that bench pressing is toxic masculinity, doesn't mean it's an attack on manhood itself. 

You can say 'I as a man, enjoy killing people'. That's obviously toxic. If you are defining your manliness as killing people but someone might say 'my manhood is about caring for people' I don't see that as a problem. People assume that if I criticize 'toxic masculinity' it means that manhood has no redeemable trait. 

I hope this post doesn't get distracted on how useless the term is. I don't care. Useless or not, it's not an attack on manhood/men.
gpt
Part of this is just a semantic question. Attacking toxic masculinity is attacking masculinity that is toxic. As such, what is being attacked is just a subset of masculinity. So it really comes down to whether attacking a part of a thing constitutes attacking that thing. Often, it does: for example, Hawaii is part of the United States, and attacking Hawaii would constitute attacking the united States. So the question is: should masculinity be treated the same way semantically?