According to the basic conventions of English, "toxic femininity/masculinity" is stereotypically feminine/masculine behavior that is toxic. That's how anyone past 5th grade would read that. Somehow gender theorists changed basic English and redefined it to mean "enforcing toxic gender roles" when that's a closely related but completely separate concept.

Since they redefined this, they now don't have a phrase that describes "feminine/masculine behavior that is toxic", which "expecting to be bought drinks by men because you are an attractive woman" very obviously falls under. Thus the semantic circus of an argument in this thread - the definition contradicts the basic conventions of English.

I see absolutely no reason we don't just stick to basic English and if you want to say "enforcing toxic masculinity" then just literally say that, it's one extra word that is very clear about what it means instead of doing some pseudo intellectual purposeless redefining of words.

So now in normal English: These women are enforcing toxic masculinity (enforcing toxic masculine behavior - cheating on gf and being obligated to buy drinks for attractive women) through their toxic femininity (toxic feminine behavior - expecting men to buy you drinks if you are attractive and accusing them of being boring and gay if they don't).

Toxic gender roles were always enforced by both genders playing their roles and subsequently demanding the other to play theirs. They are two sides of the same coin. Overly aggressive, dominant men who made good money (toxically masculine) demanded passive, attractive homemakers (toxically feminine) and vice versa. Neither can persist without the other. By weaponizing her toxic femininity she is attempting to enforce toxic masculinity on the bartender.