Most of the time what we’re really talking about when we say something’s “racist” or "misogynistic or “misanthropic”, for that matter, is really just defying conventions. There are simply things that have achieved a level of “official” unacceptability because someone (usually some kind of elite or other) has declared it so often that people take it for granted.
I recall reading, for example, that at one time it was “conventionally unacceptable” to refer to a woman’s leg as a “leg”. One had to say “limb” or one was thought vulgar and disrespectful. Stranger still, it was once the fashion to cover table legs, it being thought vulgar not to do it. But likely the majority continued to say “leg” all the same unless they were in a context that required they conform to convention.
Some of us of a certain age (and white) went from the “N” word to “Darky” to “Negro” to “Black” to “Afro American” to “African American” in all innocence and all in one generation, because it was the convention and it took awhile to decide what the convention was to be. Might change again. Blacks, on the other hand, throw the “N” word around with abandon because the convention regarding it is not deemed to apply to them.
Perhaps fifty years from now, upon reading old books or viewing ancient films, people will wonder why in the world there were so many people from India in the Old West, the former use of the word “Indian” having been obliterated by convention.
When it comes to “misogynist” terms, the convention is that nobody can refer to a woman’s appearance or body parts publicly, notwithstanding that they’re pervasive in ordinary conversation that a lot of “misanthropic” equivalents are a commonplace even in public discourse and without a fair number of users even knowing their origin.
When it comes to “bigotry”, I daresay nobody is immune from it. It can be positive as well as negative, but bigotry is bigotry. I recall, upon joining the college Glee Club expecting that a black member would have a good voice. I was astonished when I heard him sing and learned that he absolutely did not. That was a benign sort of bigotry, but it was still bigotry in the sense of a prejudgment about someone simply based on his race.
But true racism is what we intend and what we do. There are, in my opinion, few real racists in this society, but there are a lot of bigots. Sometimes it’s very mild, as with the glee club member, and sometimes it’s serious as in assuming a woman can’t be a good CPA just because she’s a woman, and refusing to use her services based solely on that.
Sometimes certain kinds of bigotry are justified. Should I be more concerned for my safety in walking through parts of North County in St. Louis at night than I would be walking around on “The Hill”? Absolutely, and it’s exactly because bigotry (prejudgment) protects me in those cases. North County is black and as a white person I would be in peril walking around there at night, whereas “The Hill” is Italian and (some say, probably rightly) that the Mob keeps the peace there in order to protect the restaurants and bars under their protection.
(there is increasingly sloppiness and inattention to detail in the slander of others with this stuff)