I disagree. Let me tell you why.

First, I think you're drawing lines where they don't really need to be drawn. Toxic masculinity is inherently homophobic. I don't really see a need to distinguish the two.

Second, when people label all male-male affection as "gay," they're sexualizing normal platonic behaviors.

Imagine a society in which there is zero discrimination against gay people, but male-male affection is still seen as "gay." In that society, straight men would still avoid male-male affection, because nobody wants to send the wrong message about their identity. (I know I hate it when people assume I'm straight and ask what kind of girls I like.)

How is that homophobic? Because now, only gay men can be affectionate with other men in public. And that means gay men are the only ones who will immediately reveal their orientation by showing affection to their friends. It draws unnecessary attention to gay couples and puts them in the spotlight.

Now let's get back to our society, in which being gay is still not 100% okay. Putting gay men in the spotlight will make them apprehensive about simply being themselves in public. You might as well force them to wear a pink triangle on their shirt sleeves.

And yes, that's true even if it's a gay man making this statement. He's hurting himself by not letting straight men show platonic affection.

​

To give you an even simpler analogy:

Imagine if wearing blue meant "I'm a doctor." Of course, there's no stigma associated with being a doctor, but eventually non-doctors would stop wearing blue because they wouldn't want people to think they can offer medical advice or save a life.

Then doctors would be immediately identifiable every time they wore blue, which in itself is a form of discrimination. Then, they might stop wearing blue also just to avoid being singled out. So now we have a society in which no one can wear a really nice and versatile color just because we made weird assumptions about it.