Dammit! I'm stupid cause I believe in the following exchange Alice has expressed an opinion (not an argument(see below)) and Bob has, correctly, brought into question her biases. I also don't consider calling a woman a woman as an "attack".

Alice: Women should have more rights. Bob: Of course you would say that. You’re a woman. Charlie: You have done nothing to make her argument less credible, you have only attacked her.

An argument would have to include why women should have more rights and hopefully proof that they lack rights now and for the pro's a plan or at least list of rights they need rather than vague "more". In other words arguments must contain facts with which people can verify or refute your claims. No wonder Bob, plays the weak bias card, Alice has offered nothing more substantial to support her point.