This must be fallacious reasoning...

Women who aren't bitches understand
the statement women are bitches
doesn't apply to them.

If your intent it is get people to see that their statement/meme/belief is problematic, sometimes the best technique is to use the same statement/meme/belief on them with the subject changed to go against their ideological position. I learned this technique and the effectiveness of it, when a former theist once told me the moment they became an atheist (which is quite rare to have a "moment")... their go to argument was always "How can you be an atheist when you stroll through the forest on a spring day?" to which someone replied, "How can you be a theist when your stroll through the cancer ward at a children's hospital?" What happens is the person automatically and unconsciously starts to argue against your claim and realizes that their claim no longer makes sense either.

If there is a fallacy, it reminded me of the No True Scotsman fallacy...

When a universal (“all”, “every”, etc.) claim is refuted, rather than conceding the point or meaningfully revising the claim, the claim is altered by going from universal to specific, and failing to give any objective criteria for the specificity.

... but there is actually some objective criteria for specificity which is "men who understand that all men aren't trash, aren't trash." "Trash" is being redefined to mean "interpreting 'men are trash' to mean 'all men are trash'." This might be the Definist Fallacy if the purpose is to make it easier to defend the claim that "all men are trash." Otherwise, I would say this is just factually wrong. I am sure men such as Harvey Weinstein, who most would consider the embodiment of human "trash," don't think that ALL men are trash so according to this new definition they wouldn't be trash and that is "absurd" (informally speaking, via reductio ad absurdum).