Would this still be considered anarchist?

[Skyhilist]

I pretty much adhere to the beliefs of anarcho-communism and anarcho-syndicalism for the most part. One thing I've been thinking over a lot lately though is this: How would occasional counter-revolutionary, racist, sexist, or other backwards syndicates, and communities be stopped from instituting internal or external laws that we pro-sexist, racist, etc.? Like would more revolutionary people in the community just intervene? If so, wouldn't that give them authority and make it not anarchist?
Anyways, what I was thinking was perhaps the groups who carried out the revolution could simply right some form of a constitution that simply prevented any syndicates, communities, or individuals from implementing racist, sexist, or backwards laws, but without treading on their freedom to control their own destinies as much as possible.
I'll admit I'm still no expert here, so I was wondering if someone could please tell me if this would violate anarcho-communism or anarcho-syndicalism?
Also, if any other anarcho-communists/syndicalists have better solutions and find what I would propose less feasible, could you please tell me what exactly you would do instead to prevent any backwards laws from being made?
Thanks in advance.

[Trans Queers for Satan]

It wouldn't violate anarchist principles to intervene in oppression. Oppression (racism, sexism, etc) necessarily requires placing one group over another - men over men, white people over people of color - so stopping the authority inherent in oppression isn't a violation of anarchism. It's probably actually one of the most important manifestations of anarchism.
Also, I'm not sure how you can have sexism or racism without a state. Anarchism must operate on consensus (or something close, I'd say anything above 75-80%), so unless women or people of color vote themselves into oppression, it wouldn't come from anarchism; or at least, overt oppression wouldn't come from anarchism. Then we'd just be talking about destroying patriarchal or white supremacist states.

[Skyhilist]

Well I mean suppose a certain community or syndicate in say Mississippi for example happens to be almost entirely white, and pretty racist. They could possibly operate on 75-80% at least in voting to oppress blacks or other non-whites.

Or, maybe it's not even a group that's being oppressed. Suppose a more backwards syndicate or community votes for something that devastates the environment but isn't necessary (like increasing oil drilling instead of switching to alternatives for example). This ruins the environment but doesn't oppress a group of people, so it's not like the environment has a vote in it. What would be done here?

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Discrimination must be stopped, no matter who supports it. To stop discrimination is to give freedom to those who did not have it, it is not authoritarian. To give freedom, to stop discrimination is always libertarian. Remember that.