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 the real definition of bigotry is factoring a superficial trait into a decision it doesn't affect.
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'll usually either make this claim without investigating other explanations (number of hours worked, different occupations, different average education or experience level), or acknowledge such explanations and see it as explaining why the injustice happens rather than showing that it isn't injustice. To me that finding is not significant evidence of misogyny because there are so many other explanations that are all so plausible. This is not to mention all the other issues associated with statistics and citations.
To a leftist, bigotry is a result. To me, bigotry is a motive, and the actual value behind it can vary.
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", what stops me from arguing, "people with 6-letter screen names beginning with Y are paid less statistically, and therefore deserve affirmative action"? I doubt leftists would respect that argument even if I could substantiate the premise.
Things I describe as bigotry that don't seem to fit this definition still ultimately have the same logic to them. For example, believing without evidence that a superficial trait affects something it doesn't. You might hear me call racist the alt-righters who insist that blacks are less intelligent or more disposed to crime because of a direct, biological cause. I of course have a good reason for doubting the existence of such causation. But believing something without evidence strongly indicates you want to believe it (which alt-righters certainly do); 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).