Accusations about members of a group
Imagine there's a group of people; we'll call them Xs. Quite often, Xs are falsely accused of something bad, Y.
Some examples:
(1) accusing Catholic priests of pedophilia can be referred to as an "anti-Catholic trope"
(2) accusing gay people of pedophilia can be referred to as a "homophobic trope"
(3) accusing Muslims of terrorism can be referred to as an "Islamophobic trope"
(4) accusing women of bad driving can be referred to as a "misogynistic trope"
(5) accusing Jews of disloyalty can be referred to as an "anti-Semitic trope"
(6) accusing trans people of being rapists can be referred to as a "transphobic trope"
(7) accusing feminists of hating men and making up false sexual harrassment allegations against them can be referred to as an "anti-feminist trope".
Anti-X Trope
Xs don't like being accused of Y and when they are, they say it's an "anti-X trope" and that the people saying it are only doing so because they are bigotted against Xs.
Then it seems that whenever an X actually is a Y, they can't be accused of it lest the accuser be deemed a bigot.
Anti-X Trope Trope
Cynical people might consider that that's what Xs wanted all along (Or at least, what the Xs pushing "anti-X trope" wanted). The cynics might in turn say the "anti-X trope" pushers are engaging in an anti-X trope trope.
As Stephen Law puts it:
In the wrong hands, the 'trope' criterion of bigotry can be used in a McCarthyite way: to suppress legitimate free speech about and criticism of countries, religions, and individuals.
And of course, Xs might accuse the cynical people of also engaging in an anti-X trope.
So what should someone do?
Firstly, stick to the truth. If you say "an X did Y" or "it was reported than an X did Y" that's probably OK.
If on the other hand you obsess about Xs doing Y, and ignore when non-Xs do Y, you may well be a bigot.
If you say "Xs do Y" without qualifying which Xs (Is it at least one X? some Xs? most Xs? all Xs?), then you're probably a bigot, and are certainly not-even-wrong, because your statement isn't precise enough to give a truth-value to.
If you say "Xs do Y twice as much as non-Xs" be prepared to back it up with statistics. If you can't, don't make the claim.
Lastly, when someone makes a true claim about Xs doing Y, don't dismiss it as an "anti-X trope", because when people do that they are almost always doing so dishonestly.
See also
Racist and bigoted tropes by Stephen Law
Examples of anti-X trope tropes
I will update this as I come across examples.
Rachel Reeves
Rachel Reeves, the UK Chancellor, objects to being called “Rachel from accounts”. She’s called that because on her CV she lied about the importance of her position in the banking industry (she said she was employed as an economist but was actually in customer relations dealing with complaints and mortgage retention).
@Basil_TGMD writes:
Rachel Reeves claims calling her 'Rachel from accounts' is "misogynistic and deeply unprofessional"
Why is the go to defence always misogyny?
What if they don't have a problem with all women, what if they just don't like you Rachel?
Reeves says criticism of her is misogynistic (i.e. an anti-X trope, with X being “women”), so what she is doing is an anti-X trope trope.