Semantic Strategy of "Toxic Masculinity": The Deconstruction of Natural Law and the Inversion of the Burden of Proof in Gender Discourse

Abstract—This paper analyzes the term “toxic masculinity”1 not as a neutral social critique, but as a strategically designed rhetorical device. This phenomenon can be observed as a gradual semantic engineering process that dismantles old norms and facilitates new normalizations. Using the Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) framework [1], [2], supplemented by a corpus analysis of media and social media texts from 2023–2025, this study identifies two primary semantic attack mechanisms driving this process: (1) Semantic manipulation that blurs the line between natural essence (substance) and behavioral deviation (accident), and (2) A shift in evaluation criteria from ontological to functional, making “health” the primary standard. This paper argues that this maneuver systematically creates a false semantic parity between masculinity and homosexuality, which in turn produces an inversion of the burden of proof that disadvantages opponents of normalization. The result is a rhetorical trap that effectively changes the rules of the moral game in public discourse, a process understood as a social construction of reality [3]. Recent empirical examples from TikTok and Instagram campaigns illustrate these mechanisms in contemporary digital discourse. Index Terms—semantic strategy, toxic masculinity, deconstruc- tion, natural law, inversion of the burden of proof, moral asymmetry, discourse analysis, critical discourse analysis.