I will address your four paragraphs, one at a time:
1) You seem to be agreeing that there is nothing wrong with a woman answering halachic questions (assuming she is capable). This accords with some sources which I quoted earlier in this thread. Your objection seems to be that Torah-study necessary to enable a woman to answer these questions is the problem. Now I will grant that men have a chiyuv to learn which women don’t have. But how does that make it an anti-women role? It just means that it is not her primary purpose. But there are many things which are not a woman’s primary purpose, which they can do anyway. And who says that peoples roles have to remain utterly stagnant over the course of thousands of years? Presumably people’s roles have changed somewhat as we moved from a nomadic society to an agricultural society and from an agricultural society to an industrial society. You did not bring up the argument about women inherently being unable to learn (e.g. da’atan kalos, tiflus) so I won’t address that.
2) The objections in this paragraph have nothing to do with what I am discussing. But just for the sake of arguing, your tznius objection does not pertain to being a Rabbi; it is simply an objection to any public role for women (in the presence of men).
3) The people they came out against, had a clear agenda. I am not pushing that agenda. Additionally, I would like to see the reasoning behind the statements. Other than it being simply a policy issue, I have not seen any reason why what I am saying cannot be done.
See also, the Peri Megadim in Seder V’hanhagos Hanishal Im Hashoel B’issur V’hetter ose 10 where he writes: ????? ?? ???? ???? ???? ????? ????? ??? ???? ?? ????? ???
4) There are a lot of undefined pronouns there.