Your derision is unwarranted. I did think about your comments for thirty seconds, and my response is still valid: that yes, you can come up with hypotheticals where men aren't noticing something they can do to draw in more women and it would be un-"offensive" to suggest, BUT at the present state, there are no actual examples where you can point out an effective strategy without being ridiculed for stereotyping.

More to the point, the phenomenon you mention of how certain kinds of discourse turn away women are not examples (of unridiculed effective ideas) until you can show that it is an effective strategy, which is very questionable and which no one has been able to substantiate. Certainly, people should be respectful in their communication, but I've attended numerous groups that have steam-rolled right over any hand-wringing about whether their language is exclusionary, and yet have huge fractions of women as attendees.

(I'm reminded of the feminists on OvercomingBias who seriously suggested to Robin that the reason more women don't comment there is that he doesn't do enough to distinguish biological and social gender. WTF? What fraction of women even think about that?)

Whatever the supposed impact of not walking on eggshells is, it's almost certainly dwarfed by other factors -- the ones we probably can't talk about without setting off the non-neurotypical gender advocates here.