1. Quite the opposite, the woman may feel included, but it's a farce, she isn't one of the guys as long as the guys can't be themselves while she is around. Resentment can form this way

2. Objectification it is, but I don't agree that that is wrong. You're trying to force a societal expectation over a natural process. More or less it's 'you should have interest in me because of all my qualities, not the sexual ones'. That is a bizarre rewiring of male sexual psychology pushed by non-males, I don't buy it.

3. keyword 'ironic' if a group of men 'ironically' made anything then it isn't automatically sexist. A group of women non-ironically a pack-track app that tracks penises IS sexist. Why? By the same definition you used above, objectification and a supposedly male belief that I am more than a penis and testicles.
(Ironic that men have blow up dolls for sex, and women have a disembodied penis known as a dildo: talking about objectification and not considering the whole of a human!)

4. No feminism WAS a civil rights movement. If anything it is an ever shifting term that has evolved since it's inception. It is no longer about equality and opportunity, it is now about special rights and privileges (family court system, maternity leave etc.) (my view)
You're right, an example of an unbalanced gender work force is not indicative of sexism. Which goes both ways! That means that just because women hold most teaching jobs doesn't mean men are actively pushed away from it, maybe they don't want to teach. Much like your counter point. Just because men hold powerful jobs doesn't mean that women are actively barred from it, they may not want to be in it! I have yet to see one well done study that has convinced me of this. Anecdotes aren't effective.
Equality is about opportunity, that may not be reflected in a statistically perfect 50%. Men and women are different, and they can like different jobs. The end goal is freedom, not an enforced literal numbered equality.
That was tried in communist systems and people were much more miserable because of it.
5. Most sexism is silent. We do it without knowing we are doing it. Women appoint women because the other women are women like themselves. Women know how to talk to women; Social women more-so. We fill our conferences with women, our panels with women, our keynotes with women because it is an easy thing to do. We promote bright young women because they remind us of ourselves. We tell ourselves that we are simply picking the best.
Combating this silent sexism is hard. As long as all we see is women everywhere then we will continue to be silently sexist and men will continue to silently vote with their feet.

You see what I did there? It can easily be applied to Nursing. So now, do we have a sexist epidemic in nursing, on the eve of a geriatrics explosion? I don't hear ANYONE complaining about that and I am sure that is because of some very sexist reasons.

6.Women make up 51% of the population... they should therefore be over 50% of our community. Bad assertion. Really bad assertion. You're equating numeric equality with actual equality. You're assuming that women want these jobs enough to be 50%. You're assuming they are like men. I for one think they are individuals, not automatons and can have their own interests.
This is somebody's fault and most probably ours. Also a bad assertion. With what unbiased reasoned study did you find this?

If we are throwing away half the talent how can we possibly be hiring the best?
Half of whom we hire must be sub-standard!

Say the top 1% is 'the best'. The entire industry cannot hire the best, unless you want 99% of the workforce unemployable for IT related fields.

2nd. Half of whom we hire must be substandard? No that isn't the case at all, probably the majority of whom you hire is standard (assuming a typical skill distribution)

More women in the field certainly would help, there would be more of the best, and more standard, and more substandard. You increased the supply of workers, which is a good thing
from certain view points. Your rhetoric is pretty awful though.

7. Positive discrimination is one way to change the numbers, but as with affirmative action, the same arguments for and against apply.