A phrase coined in mid-20th-century American psychology and popularized from the 2010s onward in feminist and activist discourse. Originally used by men's movements to distinguish healthy masculinity from destructive forms (violence, emotional suppression, domination), the phrase has been weaponized in broader culture to pathologize any traditionally masculine trait — strength, assertiveness, risk-taking, protection, hierarchical leadership, competition — by implying the whole category of masculinity is inherently toxic. The APA's 2018 Guidelines for Psychological Practice with Boys and Men essentially adopted this framing.
Biblically, there is no such thing as "toxic masculinity" as a category — there is only masculinity (a divine creational gift) and sin corrupting masculinity (as sin corrupts everything). The phrase "toxic masculinity" commits a category mistake: it locates toxicity in the design rather than in the fall. A rightly functioning man — strong, assertive, protective, hierarchical in family leadership, competitive in proper domains, risk-taking for his household and his God — is not toxic. He is what Scripture calls for. A sinning man — who dominates rather than serves, brutalizes rather than protects, uses rather than cherishes — is not manifesting "toxic masculinity" in a special way; he is simply sinning, the same sin the Bible has always named (abuse, tyranny, selfishness, cowardice, cruelty). The cure is not "less masculinity"; it is sanctified masculinity — which, being in Christ's image, is the opposite of abusive. Christ was the most masculine man in history: strong enough to drive out the moneychangers, gentle enough to weep at Lazarus's tomb, courageous enough to face the cross, disciplined enough to pray all night. Modern evangelicals who adopt "toxic masculinity" language uncritically have allowed an anti-creational ideology to set their vocabulary. Reject the phrase. Distinguish masculinity from sin, not masculinity from itself.