Toxicity is not a scientific term, but a publicist metaphor. It is convenient for a quick, simplified understanding of the phenomenon, but different people mean different things by this word. It is impossible to articulate exactly what it is. Nor is it possible to clearly define the toxicity and the degree of toxicity of each individual.

2) Toxicity is a label. Labeling people (of any kind) is a psychological mauvais ton because it greatly simplifies the picture of the world. The real person is never the same as the labels you put on them. And it is the job of a good therapist to show the client that the world is broader and more complex than labels and concepts. A bad therapist, from my point of view, will, on the contrary, push the world into the framework of concepts and theories, because it is easier, clearer, safer and less responsible. Treating your partner as a "tox", and even with the support of a psychologist, is teaching the client to communicate not with a living person, but with their projection/fantasy in the best case. At worst, with the psychologist's fantasy.


3- If you do accept "toxicity" into your working vocabulary, we are all toxic. For some to a greater degree, for some to a lesser degree. We are often inconvenient to others, there are times when we harm others. The question is, can we be different? And should we be as comfortable as possible for those around us? These are all very difficult questions. Each person finds their own balance between their own interests and the interests of their environment. A world without toxicity is a beautiful illusion, the hope of which can torment one as much as the toxicity itself. Everything has a downside. Even the oxygen that we breathe kills us by oxidation.

Some degree of toxicity is necessary for our development. Intelligence is a tool for adapting to difficult conditions. Although humanity has made the earth a much safer place in a few thousand years than it was in the beginning, the world around us is still a complex and dangerous place. And we learn to live in it through overcoming and solving difficulties.

5. Accusations of toxicity end up hitting both the "talkies" and their victims. For example, branding a child's mother as "toxic" leads her to feel intense guilt and constant stress. Which, of course, affects her health and her relationships at work and in the family. Ultimately, so does the child, whom the concept is supposed to sort of save. In this regard, the concept of "good enough mother" is much more constructive and helpful, in my opinion.

6. The very concept of "toxic" creates two primitive polarities. Sort of like there are "toxic" people and there are "non-toxic" people. This is a very harmful simplification because it closes our eyes to both the degree of toxicity, replacing the continuum with a yes/no binary, and the functional dependence on time - we are different at different moments in life. Mathematically speaking, toxicity is not a set of 0's and 1's, but a function dependent on time with values on the entire 0 to 1 continuum.

7. Most importantly, attributing "toxicity" to another completely removes responsibility for the relationship and for oneself. Of course, there are many situations where people need to be literally, physically rescued, such as from violence. There are many situations where it is cynical and harmful to tell the victim "it's her own fault." But there are also situations where the "victim" has her own secondary benefits in her status, moreover, often the balance of power is skewed in her direction. There are situations where the victim is recognized as the one who first put on the appropriate robe, although in essence the "toxicity" in such a couple is mutual. And so on. In the first cases, the work of the psychologist, at least in the beginning, consists of unconditional support of the client. In the second case, it is possibly frustrating, but nevertheless, therapeutic support of the idea of own contribution to the problem situation. How to distinguish the first situation from the second is a separate complex question. As a rule, apologists of "toxicity" diligently avoid it.