You’re still telling us the meaning of “toxic masculinity” is “masculinity = innately toxic”, which I’m not seeing anywhere except your posts (and perhaps Ibby’s).
Again, the actual meaning of the TM theory is that undesirable behavior like murder is not a manifestation of true masculinity (“deep masculinity”) but, in some cases, a symptom of the kind of mental illness that men are more susceptible to. Efforts to prevent and treat mental illness (says the theory) should take gender differences into consideration. You’re ignoring that because you want to conflate it with your understanding of third wave feminism i.e. “men are innately bad ergo masculinity is innately toxic”.
If you insist on that angle, you miss the fact that the theory agrees with you on certain issues, and you miss everything else the theory has to offer.
Sure, but who is to decide the remedy to the problem? And who has the right to remedy the problem?
Who has the right to decide what all these terms mean?
It seems like there’s no discussion unless you agree with the feminist agenda. I don’t want the state or schools to dictate say how I raise my sons in the future.
You sound just like @bojack about 100 posts ago. That’s the same guy you disagree with so strongly about what constitutes respectable behavior for a mentally ill person – a disagreement, btw, that TM theorists would tell you is exactly the kind of thing they’re talking about. “If I were a real man I wouldn’t have these thoughts/feelings, ergo I’m not a real man, ergo I’m worthless, ergo I don’t deserve to live.” Not necessarily what happened to Anthony, but a logical theory nonetheless.
You can’t remove the basic capacity for violence from any human brains, male or female, without causing damage. Otherwise we would have enslaved your species long ago. 
And who’s suggesting that anyway?
In fact I read a lot of psychologists that are worried about some of the concept of feminist movements like ignoring basic biological and psychological difference between men and women. I think most would say repressing some of these things are actually really harmful and can have dire consequences like say chopping up people and becoming a serial rapist.
Biological differences strike back! 
These differences are not strong enough to justify gender discrimination in conscription, according to Andy, but they are strong enough to explain why feminists are responsible for men committing rape and murder, apparently. 
For example, martial artist have known for a long time that gaining the ability to channel our capacity for violence through martial arts helps actually avoid violence and confrontation.
Great. 
And you handle confrontations differently vs say a person who has no capacity for violence.
Except that such people basically don’t exist. (I’ll concede quadruplegics are close enough.)
Feminism is also fractioned. I tend to speak about the modern, more radical and 3rd wave feminists vs the older generations.
Yes, which is why you should stop generalizing. You wouldn’t want all masculinists to be painted with the same brush, would you?
Imagine the outrage if I coin “toxic femininity” as a thing.
Too late – I already did! 
But if you use it as a convenient way to diss “feminists” (whatever that means), you’re not really accomplishing anything. A proper parallel would be “femininity becomes toxic when X”, so explain how that happens. There’s nothing inherently feminine about triggered landwhale memes, as far as I can see.
Not mutually exclusive! 
Some people enjoy being bitter, unhappy and weighed down by their beliefs. Take out “men” and fill in the blank with whatever eats you. For example, another group that starts with M… 
If you spout enough vitriol and get enough positive feedback for it, you’ll start to genuinely believe your own blather, even if it’s illogical, internally-inconsistent, or has valid intellectual objections against it.
I don’t think there are many people who could build a career out of repeating stuff they don’t believe. Apart from anything else, it would be quite hard to convincingly deliver it to an audience.
Now you’re being naïve, Finsky. 