Oh, goodness, I'll try to keep it short, but the strategy I prefer right now is to treat this situation like an abusive relationship between gender ideology and the people who promote it. We may have already realized the parallels between the way abusers defend their beliefs and the way gender ideologists defend their beliefs, but they haven't yet. So the idea is to (a) learn what manipulative reasoning looks like to ensure we're not using any of these tactics ourselves, (b) share these resources with the person you want to talk to so that they develop the tools to recognize when they're being manipulated, (c) listen to what they have to say/validate their emotions, which encourages them to do the same with you, and (d) once you're on the same page, gently point out using "I feel" statements when gender ideologists use harmful rhetoric.

As in, maybe one day you find an article about how manipulators get their way by convincing everyone that their emotions are the only ones that matter, when the honest approach would be to take the experiences and feelings of both parties into account. That is, because emotions are information, and ignoring them is lying by omission. You think, "oh, man, that's going to put some pieces together for a lot of people," and share it. Now some people you interact with might get interested in figuring out ways to tell if an argument is manipulative. You, also, can use what you've learned to demonstrate a more productive discussion style. Then, by promoting truth and education, you're not critiquing the ideas themselves, just the way they're presented, which can motivate people to fix that reasoning in order to make their arguments more convincing.

Once someone understands what tactics are manipulative and why, you can start gingerly objecting to certain common practices the gender ideology movement relies on. There's a lot of detail here that I have to think through.

"I don't know, that tweet that said 'TERFs can choke on my girldick' rubbed me the wrong way. I don't think it's ever okay to threaten an opponent with violence."

"Doesn't it feel kind of dangerous to keep silencing TERFs? You have to know what your opponent is saying in order to properly respond to them. I'm concerned that if I went head-to-head with a TERF, they could blindside me with arguments I've never heard." [it's very likely here that the other person will 'splain a strawman] "Oh man, that's rough. Where'd you find that?"

"I'm upset by people calling that woman 'evil' for not wanting to see a penis. I think it makes us look insensitive when we shame someone for their feelings, and that weakens the point. Isn't there a way to object to this without emotionally invalidating her?"

"It sounds like you need to vent. Did something happen?" [e.g., in response to "[group of people] is evil," showing that acknowledging and talking through the anger is a better way of addressing it than screaming at people online. to be fair, following this one up is super hard unless you've got EQ for days]

Of course, you still have to continue the conversation in a respectful manner, and of course, some people are too far gone and will demonize you at the slightest hint of questioning. At least when you encounter those, you can point to their sketchy rhetoric ("I don't think name-calling/belittling/emotional manipulation/ignoring evidence has a place in a productive discussion, but I'm worried that challenging this will upset you. So I'm not really sure what to say here"). They're still going to be pissed and take it personally, but any third parties are going to see one person throwing a tantrum because the other wanted to adhere to a code of conduct. And that's not a good look for anyone.

Once people start adopting this sensitive style of conflict resolution, it's easier for them to listen to those who have been harmed by gender ideology, and it's more likely they'll be able to see their ideological opponents as humans rather than 1D villains whose only goal is to hate. That's the real answer to "why should I question gender ideology?": it's hurting marginalized groups in ways many of its supporters probably didn't intend. It's a true test of character for someone to admit they supported something that goes against their core beliefs---in this case, to be conscientious and kind. But I've met liberal feminists who are capable of that. I'm guilty of falling for it myself. I had all the pieces but wasn't motivated to put them together until an AGP transbian harassed me. So that's why I say this strategy is designed for people who prioritize empathy, because it requires someone to put goodwill for others over their selfish desire to be right.

Some helpful resources are Why Does He Do That? by Lundy Bancroft, The Gift of Fear by Gavin de Becker, issendai.com, and all of EQI.org, especially the page on emotional invalidation. EQI.org is a damn game changer.

I'm considering writing an essay and posting it on the GC saidit, but something still feels incomplete. Gonna mull it over for a couple more days. Thanks for asking, though!