but that strikes me as a rather large issue, and starting a new thread on it that would be on display for the world and its dog to see on Latest struck me as a bad idea.
On the original issue raised, much ink has indeed been spilt!
Generally, many feel that women who choose to identify with patriarchal attitudes and definitions of women's concerns gain more by doing that than they stand to lose if they don't.
What they gain could vary widely: dateability ... protection from having to examine the disadvantages they suffer themselves as women and thus possibly lose the benefits of thinking "I'm not one of them" and having to deal with how being oppressed affects their self-image ...
I decided long ago that while I had assets that enabled me to overcome many of the inherent disadvantages of being a woman, I am in fact une femme comme les autres -- an ordinary woman. And I decided that all the young men who said things like "wow, you're not like other women" might be intending it as a compliment, but I had to remember what was really behind it: the notion that women were not smart and competent and independent, and the unfortunate fact that many women act as if they are not smart and competent and independent, whether because they have not been allowed to or they have been taught not to or they have decided doing otherwise is more profitable.
I always hope that at some point, people with attitudes like this will encounter a crisis of cognitive dissonance.
An example, I have found from personal experience, is the good-hearted, well-meaning "pro-lifer" who truly believes that abortion is bad for women and pro-choice feminists are ogres who do not care about women. I've turned a few personally by unwittingly rebutting that notion, e.g. by demonstrating more concern on an internet board for a woman obviously suffering from horrific post-partum depression than all the "pro-lifers" did with their "you must love your baby you awful woman, get on with it and stop complaining". And then we moved on to all the ways that abortion is good for some women, and denying women abortions is really very bad for some women, and that one-time anti-choicer became a bit of a strong advocate for choice.
Because she saw herself as a good person who truly cared about women (and clearly was), she could no longer adhere to an ideology that harms women. It conflicted with her self-image as a good person, so it had to go.
What kind of dissonance would it take for a male-identified woman to come around?
I guess, to start with, she might have to really care about women, and then get tired of sitting on the suitcase full of dissonance because her actions aren't consistent with caring about women.
Another kind might arise more out of plain self-interest. The senior executive fails to get the promotion and can just not deny, no matter how much she has denied to herself and the world that she is une femme comme les autres, that it is because she's a woman, what is she to do?
Sit hard on the suitcase of dissonance and try to keep it from getting out, by whatever means necessary no matter how illogical or self-defeating, or let it all out and let her world and worldview shift as it may? Which will feel better in the long run?
If women really do get more by identifying with men and men's definitions of women, etc., than by taking up the cause against things that genuinely harm women, there isn't likely much one can do.
Rich people really do get more by keeping their money than by giving it away or voting for it to be taxed away -- unless they have a really strong ethical definition of what a good person is and are really attached to their own image of themself as a good person, and as a result can't tolerate the dissonance that being rich and stingy causes them.
As long as some people have more invested in either
- their "me"ness and rejection of shared "woman"ness (my freedom of speech, my freedom to do what I want, you're not the boss of me, I'm not like the others)
or
- the benefits they gain by not identifying with women (more dates, more security, speaking tours and book deals -- whatever is more available to "I'm not a feminist" women than to others)
than in their self-image as a woman who cares about other women, I can't think of much that will persuade them. What would it take to persuade an Ann Coulter or a Margaret Thatcher? A whole lot of money, maybe. 
And that leaves not much in the way to talk to them, I guess.
Edit history
= new reply since forum marked as read