A term is meaningless if it takes on the level of ambiguity you have just ascribed to "toxic masculinity"
It's a very simple noun phrase following a common pattern, consisting of an adjctive "toxic" and a noun "masculinity", i.e. masculinity, subcategory toxic. There's absolutely no ambiguity there. What's unclear, however, is what it denotes, but like all words, it becomes clear when you learn its meaning(s).
Trying to criticise a particular usage by particular people this way is absurd, as you're indicting language as such. All you've done is to create a hypocritically hollow template to lambast any an all contested terms and/or groups. Just substitute whatever, like, say "neo-liberalism"; to name a completely random example.
If you don't care to find out what it means or want to shit on people who use it, just do that instead, but don't grandstand with nonsense such as this...
Why would a generalized term, which when used must be interpreted by the listener, be clearer and more concise than actually communicating what parts of that ambiguous term you are alluding to?
...with a straight face. Condescending spoiler:
spoiler (click to show/hide)
jargon
It's not used to engage in a dialectic, it is used by [insert whom or whatever] who are too scared or stupid to actually say something of substance .
This is a great sentence though, in isolation. I'm highlighting it for no reason whatsoever, because I'm a petty little cunt.
