You can't be both condescending towards me for not providing hard evidence of my conjecture and then simultaneously make conjectures yourself without any evidence. You gotta pick one.
Your conjecture isn't bad merely for lack of evidence its bad because its wrong.
In brief what does it mean to be toxic? To be toxic is to have internalized and act out norms and behaviors that predictably do individual or systemic harm to other with which you interact contingent on the system. Lying to and about your coworkers and eating their lunches in secret is a toxic behavior that will damage the trust of your fellows. Toxic is culturally defined in terms of what behaviors are damaging and indeed may often be under-specified. A culture that is dominated by individuals that are misogynists or racists may actually treat tolerance as toxic and bigotry as normal even if they are on average very damaging. This behavior always has an origin story. The classic one being in group has most of the money and power and uses it to advantage members. Members justify this advantage by imagining that they are inherently superior rather than the benefactors of corruption and teach their children this fictional superiority at their knee. Source: The entity of human civilization
An adult asking another adult to prove that is akin to asking someone to prove that 2 + 2 = 4 prior to discussing an advance in mathematics.
Unlike racism and other forms of in group out group bigotry science fiction as a culturally corrupting influence doesn't have thousands of years of history in which all humanity has as part of its common heritage. It needs therefore additional justification. On average science fiction favors oft oversimplified idealistic values. It's hard to see how you could find that culturally it is the source of toxic tech bros rather than a past time. You might as well blame beer and Apple computers.
