1. I am unclear on exactly whose misogyny was supposedly “being called out”. For all I know, it could be a reference to the misogynistic laws in Saudi Arabia. It doesn’t sound like they were calling you a bigot to me, but maybe I’m wrong about that. By contrast, it’s clear who you’re accusing of bigotry.
2. That’s a “whataboutism”. If you want to know why I’m not telling them about Hanlon’s Razor and such, it’s because they mentioned misogyny once (as opposed to dozens of times), I don’t know who or what they’re talking about exactly (whereas I know exactly who you’re accusing of bigotry), and they only appear to have a single target for their accusation (while you are more indiscriminate). I will ask them for clarification on who or what they’re referring to, but their alleged transgression is nowhere near the same scale as yours. And regardless, that’s not terribly relevant to your case.
3. How many times to I have to say it? Prior to this comment, I had not yet taken a side! You’re creating a false dichotomy. Not every argument has exactly two sides with no middle ground. There can be multiple sides to an argument, and there can be a lot of middle ground between two sides. I’m just trying to be that guy who interrupts an argument to say, “All right everyone, now let’s all just calm down! Now, what exactly is going on, and how did we get here?” I am saying that you have the burden of proof, but that’s just how logical arguments work.
4. I have no argument with this point.
5. I do disagree with this. If someone objects to and refuses to follow a law that they disagree with as, say, misogynistic or otherwise unjust, that doesn’t become bigoted solely based on the fact that that law was imposed for religious reason. If they follow the same principles in other, non-Muslim-dominated countries, then I don’t see any bigotry here. I’m not saying that that’s necessarily okay or justified, or that there shouldn’t be consequences for it. I’m just saying that I wouldn’t necessarily call that “bigotry”.
6. Agreed, though I never said or suggested you were defending the Saudi government.
7. I presume that this characterization is accurate, so no arguments here.
8. This is also a reasonable assumption which I don’t completely disagree with. Maybe I’d nitpick a few bits, but nothing of real, material substance.
9. Here, I’m confused. Is a policy of refusing to follow a bigoted law necessarily a bigoted policy just because the law is based on a “holy book” and/or the consequences of the policy may lead to discriminatory consequences, even if the consequences are not the intention behind the policy? I don’t believe that that’s the case.

First, if the policy applies to any law that is considered bigoted in the same or similar manner, regardless of reasons for the law, then the fact that the law is based on religion doesn’t make the policy of refusing to follow that law bigoted against that religion. As an example, many (though not all) transphobic bathroom laws are based on religious beliefs. A company may decide not to follow any of them because it feels those laws are discriminatory towards transgendered people. Is that policy bigoted?

Second, what makes a policy bigoted is, in my opinion, largely a question of intent. Clearly, the intent of the policy is to refuse to follow a law that is bigoted against women. The result of the policy may be discriminatory against Saudi women, but that was not the intention. (Plus, it seems to me that whether you follow Saudi law or not, based on your argument, Saudi women would be equally discriminated against either way. Such a policy could be considered futile or counterproductive, but I wouldn’t say it’s bigoted.)

Even if the policy may be bigoted regardless of whether the intent or justification behind it is bigoted or not, that does not make the person proposing the policy a bigot. Whether a person is bigoted is very much a question of intent and beliefs. Proposing a policy against bigotry that may happen to have unintended consequences that lead to discriminatory results is not, itself, bigotry.

So, based entirely on your characterization of the discussion, assuming all your factual claims are true, I would say that there is not sufficient justification for calling the person proposing the policy you describe a bigot. They might be, but the evidence doesn’t really support that, so I have to say that, on balance, the accusation of bigotry towards any of the commenters is unjustified at this point in time.

That said, I also asked you to provide a quote where the commenter proposed this policy, which you still haven’t done. It ultimately doesn’t matter in this case, really, as I concluded that no bigotry is evident even if the commenter did proposed what you said, but even if it had been bigoted, I’m not 100% certain that that is a fair characterization of the other side, anyway.

1. I don’t believe it was spelled out all that clearly in the previous discussion, but maybe I’m just being an idiot. A lot of the discussion kinda went over my head and felt splintered. I do thank you for the explanation, which does help clarify things. As for the “pretending” thing, I have been completely genuine from the start. And it was this sort of accusation that led me to bring up Hanlon’s Razor. It wasn’t accusing a specific policy or law of bigotry, or accusing those who propose or support such a policy or law of being a bigot. It’s that you presumed bigotry on my part as opposed to stupidity with little justification for it. In fact, your only justification for it—that it had been explained clearly several times before—was simply false. You still haven’t explained how asking for clarification on something is bigoted, as that was the position I was taking and that you were calling bigoted.

To be clear, I am consciously avoiding taking a stance on whether the proposed policy—as you characterize it—is a good idea or even a moral idea or not. If I had to say, it seems a bit pointless and possibly not worth it, but I’m not taking a firm stance on that; I’m certainly not advocating for it. I’m mostly ambivalent on the whole thing. I just don’t think it’s necessarily bigoted or sufficient evidence of bigotry on the part of the proposer. And I certainly don’t think that questioning that characterization of the proposer or asking for clarification is itself bigotry.