My opinions on these three topics:

1) There are two important aspects of talking about "getting women"; I guess one of them is more obvious for men and one for women, so I will write both explicitly.

a) For a typical heterosexual man, "getting women" is an important part of his utility function; perhaps so important that talking about instrumental rationality without mentioning this feels dishonest. There are tons of low-hanging fruit here (the whole PUA industry is about that); ignoring this topic would be like ignoring the topic of finding a good job or developing social skills. Seen from this perspective, I would say we speak relatively little about the topic; we already have kind of a taboo, it's just not absolute.

b) Discussing women as objects sends a strong message to women: "you do not belong here". We speak about you, but not with you. -- Ladies can describe their feelings better, I can only recommend imagining a reversed situation; a "rationalist website" with women discussing how to get handsome millionaires (or whatever would be the nearest equivalent), creating a feeling that if you are not a millionaire, you have no worth as a human being, and even if you are a millionare, your worth is exactly the money you have, nothing more. Your personal utility function is not important; the only important thing is how much utilities the discussing women can get from you.

Is there a good solution which would not ignore either of these aspects? In my opinion, there is: having both discussions about "getting women" and "getting men" on the website. And having them only in articles on a given topic, not randomly anywhere else. But even if this would be acceptable to others (which I doubt), the problem remains how to get from here to there.

I propose an experiment on how to balance the gender imbalance here. Once in a time create a "ladies first" topic, where only women would be allowed to comment during the first two days; after this time, the discussion is open to everyone. (During the two days, the announcement would be visible in the top and bottom of the article; and then it would be removed.) It could give us an idea of how the discussion would look if we had more women here. And if a man wants to contribute, waiting two days is not so difficult. The obvious disadvantage: women members who don't want to make their gender publicly known would have to avoid the discussion or create another account. -- The topics could be women-specific (getting the handsome millionaire), or even, for the sake of experiment, completely neutral, for example "ladies first" Open Thread (which after two days becomes a normal Open Thread, but the different initial dynamics could be interesting).

2) With regards to unsupported theories, I just want to note that even "politically correct" theories can be unsupported or incorrect. (Yes, that includes even feminist theories.) I would like having the same rule for both of them. If it is forbidden to write "men are statistically better than women in math", it should be equally forbidden to write "men are statistically exactly the same as women in math", if in both cases the same level of evidence is provided. Or perhaps we should have the same reaction for both of them, something like "[citation needed]" in Wikipedia.

3) I would enjoy having a more friendly discussion environment, but I don't want to make it a duty. I mean, offenses are bad, but mere "lack of warmth" is normal, although it is nice to do better than this. Among men, this is often the normal mode of speech; among women it's usually otherwise... I think it would be nice to let everyone speak in their preferred voice. We should encourage men to display more warmth (and it would be an interesting topic on how to do it without feeling awkward), but not criticize them for failing to reach the level convenient for women.

Maybe we could have in comments small icons indicating how we want to communicate (how we want other people to respond to us). Something like Crocker's rules, but with three options: nice / impersonal / Crocker's rules. (Graphically: a heart, a square, a crosshair.) A user would select an icon when making a comment, and would select the default icon in user preferences dialog. New users would automatically get the "nice" icon as a default (as a trivial incentive for more people to have this option). Of course the "nice" icon means that also the comment is nice, not only the reactions are expected to be.