Protagonist versus leftist ideas of bigotry

I decry enough things as bigoted to set me apart from most right-wingers, who tend not to have that as a negative value, but I have a different idea of what it means to be bigoted than most leftists. To me bigotry is when you factor a superficial trait into a decision it doesn't affect.

What I maen by left and right

To me, things like statistical imbalances are not bigotry, only an indicator of it. Whereas to a leftist, statistical imbalances seem to *constitute* bigotry. A leftist will look at a statistic that men earn higher wages than women and say it proves there's widespread misogyny at work. They either ignore other explanations (number of hours worked, different occupations, different average education or experience level), or see such factors as explaining *why the discrimination happens* rather than showing that it isn't discrimination. They seem to still see it as discrimination even if it's accounted for by such explanations.

To a leftist, bigotry is an outcome. To me, bigotry is a motive.

There's a fairly clear logical problem with the leftist concept: the lines are arbitrary. If it's fair to say "women are paid less statistically, therefore they're oppressed and deserve affirmative action", why not "people with 6-letter names beginning with Y are paid less statistically, and therefore deserve affirmative action"? I doubt leftists would respect that argument even if I could prove the premise.

Things I describe as bigotry that don't seem to fit this definition just follow the same logic a bit more loosely. For example, believing without evidence that a superficial trait affects something it doesn't. You might hear me call racist the idea that black people are less intelligent or more disposed to crime because of a direct, biological cause. Believing something without evidence strongly indicates you *want* to believe it; you are racist if you *want* to have a reason to explicitly factor race into a guess at someone's character.

The other one mainly appears in stories, and is artificially creating an overt correlation between a superficial trait and something significant. In stories, the writer has complete control of each character's superficial traits and cases where one choice would be better for the story outside of this consideration are the exception. So if you deliberately make all the villains one race and all the heroes another, it indicates you're a racist, and also risks feeding double standards in real life.

So when I describe a story as misandrist for invoking the double standard on physical assault, I'm not committing the identity politics fallacy. The story is legitimizing something wrong and the misandry is the double standard it appeals to in the mind of the audience (which of course, it in turn strengthens).