I'm not really sure that we're talking about the same things though.
Most of us are familiar with the concept of racism, but in your original fantasy works you aren't really talking about race. You're essentially talking about different species that are just lumped into the 'races of men'. You aren't really talking about the kinds of differences you'd see in something like Japanese versus Kenyan, you're talking about differences even more pronounced than between Homo sapiens and neanderthal.
The various sapient creature types in classical fantasy are designed from the ground up to register in the uncanny valley, marking them as distinctly inhuman. They are supposed to strike us as 'other', so if you look at it through a lens of what we see as racism, then -- I mean, yeah, you're gonna see racism, because they are being other-ed and compared.
I don't think there's an actual answer to that. I know that Pathfinder 2E is trying to make them more like actual races of men and less like different species but it feels really forced and kind of ham-fisted, the way they did it. But I think so long as you are using a model that is obviously and meant-to-be something other than 'generic human' you will always see those types of comparisons, just based on human instinct.
Notably, though -- you rarely see the humans at the top of the food chain there. They are typically the weaker of the options available in whatever way. So I think that the directionality matters, as in the original example. If a "superior" species is being condescending to a human, does the directionality of it make a difference? Doesn't it then become just another tool to show that it's unpleasant to be on the receiving end of such criticism?