I find myself at a loss for words when I encounter someone who seemingly cannot entertain the notion of the opposing position. If you have a group of people who can admit they don't really know for sure you get much better conversation and food for thought. Plenty of people look to play devil's advo for even the most supposedly one sided arguments. Since I'm really only in this to further my own insight i'm not looking to convince anyone of anything, really.
I like to talk about social justice a lot. I'm not a very confident person, really. Years of growing up narrated by tragedy and seemingly hopelessness that any of it will ever get better will do that to you. But I have an indignant and righteous anger that fuels a passion for my stance on this topic that I will not ever sway on. There is nothing to sway towards. Racism does not hurt white people. Sexism does not affect men. Ableism does not hurt the abled. Homophobia does not have an inverse. If you argue against or play devil's advocate on any of these points, you are Wrong. Historically, statistically, factually, empirically Wrong. It is as simple as that. Is there really a fulfilling, opposing argument to be had about this? What insight am I really missing out on? Nothing.
I'd argue the opposite: I think racism hurts white people, sexism affects men, ableism hurts the abled, and homophobia hurts homophobes. I do not think the effects of oppression on the oppressor are comparable at all, but I do think bigotry has a powerful stunting effect of the emotional capacity and overall humanity of the oppressor. In my experience, I've found that the more I widen the scope of my empathy, the more I get out of life. I also believe this generalizes on a much greater scale, but unfortunately I don't have a very strong argument for that. You can look at it from a more practical perspective, though. For example, by disenfranchising women you lose about half of the able minds on the planet. Though that has an absolutely disastrous effect on women, it has an indirect negative effect on men. Of course, I wouldn't make that my primary argument for treating women like human beings, but I do think it's sound.Racism does not hurt white people. Sexism does not affect men. Ableism does not hurt the abled. Homophobia does not have an inverse. If you argue against or play devil's advocate on any of these points, you are Wrong. Historically, statistically, factually, empirically Wrong. It is as simple as that.
Not even playing devil's advocate I would say these are mostly blanket statements that appeal to (y)our invented idea of justice/balance. I would say these examples you've used have become more emotional/morally charged than logical.