I suspect in this case that one would rather read Dworkin instead of Aristotle or Plato, as opposed to after, only if one would rather be happy for being on the correct side of a fight, not the correct side of an issue.

I see this as far more fundamental, at the levels of logic, literacy, and competency of one's mind. I think it's not about this fight, and the issue is more about a paradigm than either side. It's about what words mean, and about the folly of projecting someone else's inner life out upon the whole world. Just the simple fact that people have allowed themselves to be manipulated in that way means the problem is at the root of their thought processes.

I don't think them reading Dworkin would change anything about them, they'd either agree with her and think she would agree with them now (as if she'd grow into the liberal feminism she opposed as it grew to dominate everything, that she'd buy-in or lean-in), or they'd see her as angry and reactionary. Dworkin hurts me emotionally because assumptions I made long ago about the nature of (or what I thought were the natural) relationships between men and women were really ripped apart, and they've been replaced with nothing, so maybe I'm biased.