तत्त्वप्रह्व
स्वभावस्थं निरावेशम्
For Śri Śaṅkara, given your inclination towards advaita, these are texts pertaining to vyāvahārika and therefore unimportant. And as Shivsomashekhar ji suggested, the options you have, therefore, is to accept it as is, and perhaps ignore it. There is no doubt that prima facie it does mean what you've described.
Though, there certainly exists a meaning that is not obnoxious, and is rahasyopāsana. For e.g., the word strī refers to a specific form of Nārāyaṇa, so abusive interpretation would be incongruous. Now if a blind man hits a lamp-post, one cannot hold the it responsible.
@Poeticus ji, you first invite and then disqualify me in the very next sentence by framing it as if it is a praise! Typical naiyāyikaI would like to invite@तत्त्वप्रह्व to answer this question, because I believe a Dvaitic answer will provide better clarity than any answer that I could give. Also because this is a fantastic question that I want to see answered by someone with immeasurable shastra-jnana.
Will share what i've learnt from Deva-Guru kṛpā though am nowhere close to your qualifier.I agree with Poeticus ji that the word infallible can be expressed only in terms of svataḥ-prāmāṇya and apauruṣeyatva and is based on the eternality of śabda. Both are primarily not logical constructs, and from the point of view logic, a necessity, but more importantly, experiential. However, infallible in the sense of not deceitful / not liable to error / not misleading are still valid w.r.t. svatah-pramāṇa. When the terms mantra-draṣṭa, or śruti (that which was heard) are used, it is not thru physical eyes/ears, for in that case, logically everything that one hears is a śruti-vākya, and there is no basis for separating out veda-vākyas as śruti. Advaita too accepts both, however, holding one set of vākyās superior to others undermines the svataḥ-prāmāṇya. So śruti vākyas were beheld, or more appropriately i'd say intuited, by ṛṣis in samādhi, and their experiential basis is that anyone with enough sādhāna can intuit them independently, though, only when a new mantra or a new combination or a new meaning is intuited does one become ṛṣi of the mantra, for e.g., Viśvāmitra combined vyāhṛtis and tripadi giving rise to new meaning, hence Viśvāmitra gāyatrī. Now the question of who/what is ultimately intuitive is answered differently by different schools. Both ontological and epistemological stances of each school have a bearing on this, perhaps all are equally valid, but not necessarily equally convincing. From a tattvavāda perspective, this ultimate is the sākṣi and wisdom is intuited in the cit as if a reflection of truth that is as real as truth itself. So the śruti existed even before it was intuited by the first ṛṣi, because only that which exists (real) can be intuited, and unless you have something that is objective as well as that which intuits (two reals) it cannot be held as pramāṇa. Assuming unity reconstitutes everything, with the only plausible option being no ajñāna (bandha/bondage) - no jñāna (mokṣa/release), which basically means, you are wasting your time indulging in śāstras. This is common to both mādhyamika and advaita, though a palatable approach of adhyāsāropa - māyāvāda - promulgated by Śri Śaṅkara is widely known, which eventually culminates in the former. For the realists though, the sākṣi determines wisdom, just as it does w.r.t sukha and duḥkha and this is what is referred to as the mystic haṁsa - the royal white swan capable of separating milk from water (ps: symbolic).
I think, most of your doubts regarding interpretations, upanayana, apparent misogyny will be answered if you receive right guidance from a Guru. In presenting texts thru' translations for contemporary readers, much of the contextual situatedness has been compromised. For e.g., it is a wrong belief that women have no part in vaidik rituals, they only don't have the responsibility of maintaining the yajñopavīta, which for the orthodox, is a very important practice that requires changes in response to several natural occurrences like birth/death etc. Those, if at all, that are now in the practice of giving yajñopavīta to women, have no idea what they are doing. Also, the practice of vedādhyayana by women is not a taboo as it is made out to be, several ṛṣi-patnis are examples for this, though even before the time of Śri Śaṅkara this had deteriorated into what can be considered as male domination in education. Perhaps you already know that many yajñas cannot even be conducted without a dharmapatni.
There is a particular methodology in studying śāstras, how one studies is as important as what is being studied. In the sequence of study, upaniṣads come much later, brahmasūtra after that, very few learn the various interpretations of vedas (several do recite them, but not many understand). If you are interested in advaita/māyāvāda, study prakaraṇas, then Gītā and its bhāṣya, then upaniṣads and its bhāṣya, and so on. Apologies for sounding preachy, but the adhyātmika-adhidaivika problems arising out of speculative misunderstanding is best avoided by a sādhaka.
श्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु ।
