See if you can follow the logic here:

A man throwing on a dress and creating a preposterous caricature of femininity, including every offensive stereotype ever conceived to marginalize women, is not toxic masculinity.

Objecting to it is.

This first struck me as absurd--a complete upending of their own argument. But once I thought about it some more, it does make a perverted kind of sense.

The notion of masculinity being "toxic" has long been used to bludgeon men into behaving more like women.

That's not to say that men don't continue to misbehave at times in terms of how they treat women, but that's not what toxic masculinity is about. As the term metastasized throughout the culture, toxic masculinity came to define all masculinity, and through it, all men, as toxic.

Since men themselves were irredeemably toxic, all vestiges of their masculinity, whether it was how they sit on the subway to not blubbering over every little thing (because that's a sign of emotional stability) needed to be eradicated if they were to be allowed to remain in polite society.

We have now come to the ultimate culmination of that process: Men not just acting like women but trying to become women.

Of course, they bring with them every ridiculous stereotype imaginable. These are not women, these are men's perverted versions of women, and are about what you'd expect, Dylan Mulvaney being a ubiquitous example.

This is a perfect case of "be careful what you wish for." Long championed by activist feminists, the war against toxic masculinity has created a new man.

And that new man is a woman.

Sorry, real women, time to step aside and make room for the men.

Again.

Which brings us to the curious spectacle of men championing this invasion of women's spaces by other men under the guise of combating toxic masculinity:

This attempt on Bud Light's part to be forward-thinking about how its customers live and love has been met with a backlash by one group of people who seem to believe that another group of people should not exist.

Everything about this sentence is wrong.

Celebrating a parody of a woman is not "forward thinking."

It certainly does not have anything to do with how Bud Light's "customers live and love," it was about slapping those customers in the face, as was made clear by the marketing executive behind the move and her intent to move beyond the "fratty culture" of their old marketing.

Further, suggesting it's only people who believe "another group should not exist" is wholly unsupported. Disliking something does not necessarily mean you don't think it should exist. I don't like beets, but I'm not trying to eradicate them.

(That said, I don't particularly want to be confronted with a man pretending to be a beet at least in part because that would be about as convincing as watching Dylan Mulvaney trying to be a woman.)

Brian Broome then goes on to conflate two issues because that's just what he does.

A note to those folks who are upset that Anheuser-Busch relied on a trans woman as a quasi-spokesperson: Whether you like it or not, queer people have been drinking "your beer" for decades. In fact, as long as there's been beer, queer people have been drinking it.

This isn't about "queer people," and he knows it.

Mulvaney's celebration for some reason threatened the very existence of a whole bunch of guys who aren't ready for that reality.

Not so much, really. We mainly don't like seeing a guy who, when he's not pretending to be a woman, is pretending to be a six-year-old girl.

At this point it's time to buckle up as we go on a deep dive into Broome's psyche.

This will surprise no one who has ever been a small boy. Every boy knows the sting of being called a sissy. Boys are raised to believe that so-called feminine traits represent a danger they must avoid. Boys learn early that they can expect to be punished if they stray in any way into risky, weakening feminine behaviors. These lessons take root deep in our psyches as youngsters, and they stay there forever.

How do I know this is a deep dive into his psyche?

He wrote a book about it, called "Punch Me Up To The Gods," a memoir of a man who has not done anything of particular note in his 50-odd years on earth other than being a black gay guy coming to terms with being a black gay guy along with a dollop of racism (because of course) which all but guaranteed him a slew of awards and effusive praise.

Seriously, the adulation is over-the-top, embarrassingly so, particularly for a work that is otherwise fairly pedestrian given what I've read so far.

Not surprisingly, his piece quickly descends into a combination of therapy session and pure unintentional comedy.

Over a lifetime, the expectations around masculinity are random and often border on the absurd... A recent thread from one of my favorite Instagram accounts asked its male followers to name behaviors they'd been told were feminine and thus forbidden from adopting. The list included: wearing sandals, using sunscreen or umbrellas, cat ownership, apologizing, the color pink and — this is my favorite — playing a wind instrument.

Instagram. The man is using a poll on Instagram to support what remains of his tattered argument.

You know what's masculine? Finding that list funny. That's masculine.

I mean, sandals? sunscreen? Cat ownership? These are hilarious. Half are definitely trolls, the other half bots.

(Which are also trolls.)

But Broome is too serious an author to have time to laugh as you can tell from his extremely serious author pics, and so he goes on.

Many of the men wrote about what they weren't permitted to do with their bodies, such as crossing their legs at the knee or putting their hands on their hips.

There's an anatomical reason as to why men don't typically cross their legs at the knee. Not everyone, we're all built slightly differently, but for most men, crossing your legs at the knee is... uncomfortable. I'll just leave it at that.

Next comes the part where a man who has no idea what masculinity is tries to explain it.

If conventional views of manliness could be reduced to a recipe, I'd guess it would be one part stoicism, two parts anger, three parts lust, four parts control over women. This cocktail can be dangerous, creating men who struggle to process complex emotions, deal with negative feelings in a healthy way, or even express love.

If I were to reduce Broome's view of masculinity to a recipe I'd guess it would be one part projection...

Yeah, that's it. Just that one part projection.

Then we move on to what this is really all about:

Men need to move beyond the idea that dominating other human beings and engaging in endless emotional barricading is how to show the world that they're "masculine." The concept needs a de-gendering. Perhaps to some, masculinity only means that you are self-assured, confident, not easily threatened and won't be told what to do, what you can't wear, whom you can love. But there are literally millions of people who possess these traits regardless of sex or gender identity.

He wants to end the very concept of masculinity.

Only a deeply insecure man speaks this way. Typically, only deeply insecure men even bother to give any thought at all to what it means to be masculine. In fact, you could eliminate the concept tomorrow and most of us wouldn't even notice, we'd just keep going on being who we are. It's not like we're all compulsively checking Instagram to find out the "masculine tip of the day." If you want to call how we behave, "masculine," fine.

We don't care.

In summing up the people who objected to the ad, Broome finishes his exercise in self-confession.

But all I see are human beings who as children were crushed and replaced with a script, a set of expectations and an endless performance. Because the pink is for everyone.

Dude. Just, dude.