Maybe you could prod them by asking them questions designed to highlight their unconscious biases? Assuming that they're not a malicious actor of course and actually genuinely trying to learn and expand their worldview.
I do think it's important to determine whether the person you're arguing with actually cares to grow and learn or if they're just trying to start fights with people and "win" arguments with comments that take a lot of nuance to address. In the cases where they don't care, don't waste your breath on arguing with someone who's sole purpose is to make you angry. They don't care about your nuanced answer.
I forget how the original phrase goes, but someone once said that these people use language as a toy to play with, while the reasonable person uses it to justify their actions.
While I don't disagree with anything you said, I'm not sure how this answers the OP's question. At least without a little bit more elaboration on what assumptions you're making and why you're bringing up feminism specifically in this case.
Just to take a stab here though, I think you bring up feminism because more often than not men will discredit women because "women get emotional". And since the men in this situation aren't crying from whatever casually horrendous shit is being said in the name of "debate", that to them, they think they are just and unbiased and have a more unbiased opiniom than women. Which ignores how men will often react angrily to a woman who buts into their conversation and not even realize that anger is an emotion too.
Because we've hit the point of capitalism where the system is imploding on itself, and so those in power turn to fascism in order to protect their capital.
Let's not forget how the war on drugs was also am excuse to discriminate without being as obvious about it, since weed was disproportionately used by mexican and black communities(? The details are a bit hazy to me, truth be told).
And since capitalism needs its blood sacrifice, and our constitution explicitly states that slave labor is still allowed for imprisoned people, we now have a permanent underclass of drug possessors to extract slave labor from. Not to mention that since we don't have any robust ways to rehabilitate former criminals into society, and most jobs categorically deny the applications of anyone who has had a felony on their record, it just funnels these people back into the industrial prison complex. I mean what else are you supposed to do when you have no money and nobody will hire you?
Capitalism is working as intended and the criminalization of drugs is just one of those levers it can pull. It was never about the actual harmfulness of drugs, and that's why problems like this have never been fixed.
I appreciate seeing the wins in court and am glad that there are at least some controls in place still to reign in conservatives, but let's not forget that the R's have been trying to stack the courts in their favor whenever they can. Heck, the supreme court has already been captured by them and they've already legitimized discrimination based on "religious reasons".
There's going to be a long battle ahead for us yet. Still, I try to appreciate the wins where we get them.
Maybe you could prod them by asking them questions designed to highlight their unconscious biases? Assuming that they're not a malicious actor of course and actually genuinely trying to learn and expand their worldview.
I do think it's important to determine whether the person you're arguing with actually cares to grow and learn or if they're just trying to start fights with people and "win" arguments with comments that take a lot of nuance to address. In the cases where they don't care, don't waste your breath on arguing with someone who's sole purpose is to make you angry. They don't care about your nuanced answer.
I forget how the original phrase goes, but someone once said that these people use language as a toy to play with, while the reasonable person uses it to justify their actions.