I haven't watched that conversation yet, so probably shouldn't post, but there are certain general aspects to various feminist debates I have participated in the past which seem relevant here.
One is the question if human rights are a universal concept, somehow in their essence the same for all human beings and therefore should be made the rule everywhere, or if human rights are culture-specific, to be separately determined by each culture (and if so, how is that done in authoritarian cultures), or if they are some combination of these two so that some things are declared unacceptable everywhere (say cannibalism and slavery), while others may be allowed (say subjugation of women or child labour etc.).
Those who believe that the essence of human rights is a universal concept often get into fights with those who believe that each culture should decide on their own. The so-called 'choice feminism' tries to find a way around this conflict, but in my view unsuccessfully. Many feminist groups I have been involved with end up not discussing anything about women's status in cultures of the countries which at some point were colonised by some European powers, as here the question of colonialism and racism also rear their ugly heads. And then the question of white saviourism and, when it is Islam that is discussed, the question of Islamophobia.
The effect that, however, can mean that international feminist sites stay silent about some of the worst infringements of women's rights. The right then exploits that to argue that Western feminists are self-centered and don't care about women elsewhere.
The best way forwards would, of course, be to let the feminists voices in the affected cultures be heard and support feminism in those areas with funds, and that is being done. But most women in Afghanistan today can't really speak, because the Taliban won't let them.
My second point is that feminist theory should go back to the foundations much more than is being done. For instance, there is a difference between criticising religious women who follow patriarchal religions and the study and criticism of the tenets of those patriarchal religions themselves.
Why is it that Christianity worships the father and the son, for instance, but not the mother and the daughter (though virgin Mary does have a somewhat lower but still respected role in Catholicism)?
Why has the role of clerics been denied from women in almost all religions?
Why are so many religious rules written differently for men and women, and why are those differences such that men become the leaders in the societies following those religions while women seem to be responsible for all sexual gatekeeping when they clearly cannot keep that gate shut?
These may sound too obvious points to make, of course, but when we use choice feminism it's good to understand what it is that we are really choosing and why. (The same applies, of course, to such choices as going along with sexist norms in popular culture about how women should dress and look.)
Third, these debates will always be difficult because women belong to different tribes and some of the discussions happen across tribal borders. Many of us don't like to see their own cultures criticised by outsiders, and in particular those outsiders who haven't done much research into that culture or its multiple different aspects. I think that learning as much as possible about other cultures is very important here, and it is equally important to learn about the histories of them and the history of women's rights globally.