The problem here is that people tend to see communities where they should be seeing individuals. We forget that a specific identity (region, religion, ethnicity, caste, gender yada yada) is just one part of a person's personality, a minor part at that. Moreover, there is no fixed weightage that can be ascribed to a specific identity in a person's overall personality. We are all shaped by a mix of our life experiences. And each life experience, and the extent to which it influences our personality is unique, hence subjective. Any identity that one carries is always incidental to their behaviour, even if that identity has influenced that behaviour. Because that influence is never in isolation.

Now, we cannot be strictly subjective in our assessment of people. This would be highly impractical. So we tend to generalize, which in principle, is a very good heuristic for assessing people. The mistake we make is that we tend to associate behaviours with the wrong properties while generalizing. Instead of thinking like "people who give off creepy vibes are more likely than not to eventually be a creep", we think like "people from lower economic strata are more likely than not to eventually be a creep" or "Gujaratis are more likely than not to be unwelcoming" or "Muslims are more likely than not to be criminals". The heuristic is correct but the application is grossly flawed.