To a certain extent, yes.
But getting nothing done=supporting the status quo.
At some point, society must make decisions or continue to support the status quo.
These issues are not as vague as you explain.
For example, white women have frequently jeopardized Black men as documented historically, most notably with Emmett Till but also with other historical cases. There is a clear-cut connection to white supremacy due to this history.
I know of no similar documentation of white women specifically jeopardized by Black men as a group, the way white women have historically exhibited this behavior consistently throughout history. Is there any documentation that Black men are specifically more dangerous to white women? No. There is no equivalence when we take history into account.
As a brown/mixed woman with postgraduate degrees, I immediately see the way Amy Cooper jeopardized a Black man even though it is very plausible that I would end up sitting next to her in a meeting. We would seem to have a lot in common, yet I understand this man’s point of view because I know American history in this regard. This isn't as gray as you make it: it is white supremacy in action.
Is a Muslim woman concerned about homosexuality? Well, the main question is whether or not she is willing to tolerate Islamophobia. I would approach her with this statement: if she thinks homosexuality is 'dangerous,' then she should make the effort to understand why some people think HER margin is 'dangerous.' If she isn’t interested in considering the history of oppression to which homosexuals are subjected, she can go to a setting in which intolerance is the norm and is tolerated: at that place, she can be homophobic. She also, however, has to accept that, because she has chosen intolerance of another oppressed group, she may also be oppressed by her exact attitude. This attitude conveys that another person isn’t equal or is somehow flawed; thus, she can be intolerant around other intolerant people while figuring out that what’s good for the goose MUST be accepted as good for the gander. She isn’t bothering to understand another margin, thus she shouldn’t expect others to understand hers.
We’re supposed to be a country of equality, a lie which has never transpired. We’re a white supremacist country. That should be weighed and measured at every turn: white supremacy includes gender binary, ie, homophobia.
It is unhelpful to classify people, yes, but at some point reality should intervene. Power is distributed to: white/male/heterosexual, generally speaking. With this in mind, we understand that upholding narrow-minded fascist stances which support white supremacy--ie, whiteness/patriarchy/gender binary--are damaging.
As the political professor Tim Snyder writes, at some point tolerance for intolerance simply becomes intolerance itself. There is a level of intolerable behavior that shouldn't be tolerated even by the most liberal of us, and at this juncture in time, it is racism and sexism/homophobia which acknowledges our particular onerous history.