If the real problem is that people who claim to be objective aren't, then taking aim at "objectivity" is wildly counterproductive. When somebody says something that is objectively untrue, any commitment to objectivity they profess is an invaluable gift to you. It means that they're obliged to accept in principle that there is a fact of the matter, that they might currently be wrong about it, and that certain rules of evidence can determine whether or not they are. You don't want to reject all that; you want to double down on it.
And if you get to the point where you do think that objectivity itself favors the other side, that's still no reason to question objectivity -- it's reason to question whether you're on the right side.
My biggest problem is that most people who reject objectivity do so not out of principle, but because they get to this point but would rather keep arguing than concede. (Not that I think they're being deliberately dishonest, but far more likely to be believing their own lie...
)
Here's the problem with objectivity: anything that can reasonably be considered an "objective fact of the matter" is can be more accurately described as "what we believe we can confirm". Because our capacity for knowledge is never capable of reaching true perfection we can never be truly
sure of anything, just what we can appear to confirm with our limited human senses and the aid of whatever limited technology we have available at the time. And that's taught us a lot so far, but we've also discovered many times after the fact where we've gotten a lot of stuff wrong. Even in the hard sciences. There's a reason we aren't all watching the sun circle around the earth while we make sure to keep our four bodily humours in good balance.
The only way to progress; the only way to advance knowledge, is to upset the status quo, to reject what is "objectively known". The best way to do this is obviously with evidence. In a lot of cases concerning the humanities (linguistics, history) and social sciences (sociology, many forms of psychology), you're as likely to end up with more qualitative evidence than quantitative as you are to end up with more quantitative evidence than qualitative.
There was a point, not too long ago mind you, that one particular "fact of the matter" is that "there are two genders", and attempting to argue otherwise is an example of bias. There are still those who take this stance. And yet, any folx speaking truth to their identity (and those voicing their support in believing them) have been treated as totally being subjective and biased and or "advancing an agenda" while those who support the status quo are able to argue from their own biases and agendas while getting to pretend to cloak themselves in a veneer of "objectivity" (again, more likely than not believing the lie). If you want really obvious examples of this phenomenon in action, look at any trial jury selection process ("Will a black juror be able to judge this hate crime objectively?") Or hell, the entire judicial system, for that matter. People still make demands that openly gay judges recuse themselves from cases that involve gay rights (because, when it comes to civil rights and constitutional law, only straight people can be
truly objective
).
"Objectivity",
true objectivity in the way people define it, simply does not exist. Everyone is biased, either for or against the status quo in any given situation, and those who claim "objectivity" only believe themselves having the right to do so because they have a bias for the status quo. This not only unjustly allows them to claim some kind of moral or intellectual high ground, but it also allows them to reject wholesale any and all qualitative evidence they don't agree with as "obviously coming from a place of bias" or from people with an "agenda".
Everyone always forgets that the status quo is an agenda too.