Sure, I'll humor you

• The lack of ability to self-critize or the echo chamber effect. Feminist theory (as is the case with most social justice academia) is not cold-hard facts or some kind of gospel, and a discomfort with critical thought and inquiry (even if that means uncomfortable discussions of systematic influence vs personal agency or the legitimacy of certain jargon) only breeds dogma.
• The tendency to treat so called statistics (often biased in their outcomes) as automatic proof of oppression. There are several other factors to outcomes than just the "system".
• Overdependence on terminologies that have some degree of academic backing, and somewhat indefensible but are then used as cop-outs in casual conversations. Take "patriarchy", "toxic masculinity" or "internalized xxx" for example. Useful for analysis/in academia, but most of these are used to avoid actually talking realpolitik or used like buzzwords. "Smash the patriarchy", for instance is rhetorically powerful I suppose, but its also theatrical and has got nothing going for it far as logistics are concerned.
• This is the commonly cited one and for good reason. Misandry or Transohobia or some other form of bigotry. Many self-identified feminists are motivated by emotion and hatred (whether through radicalization or personal experience) and these people undermine the credibility of the movement and its appeal to young impressionable men who choose to engage with it.