Some folks are nit-picking about which statements are
really sexism and which are more universal. I can understand that but I think a better way for folks to sit with this is to pull back.
Homogeneous cultures are bad at understanding how they seem to outsiders. We all lose the trees in the forest. It's not exclusive to race or gender but it comes it in particular around identities (gender, inexperience, etc) that someone has. It's really easy to say a series of statements that an insider would recognize as referencing one quality (i.e. inexperience) but an outsider could easily mistake for referencing another quality (i.e. gender). In order to learn what insiders mean, you need to be in a space where you can hear what existing insiders mean, which generally means insiders should take care with their language.
This is one of the reasons I get suspicious any time "cultural fit" is brought up. It's often talked about as if the existing team has a 'good' culture, and new people might disrupt this existing good culture. However, whenever we discover a cultural mismatch between a new colleague and the existing norm, I suspect what is revealed is that the existing 'good' culture is hostile to certain other cultures. Sometimes that's a good thing (coders should be hostile to people who don't think typos should matter), but generally you want to avoid it.
To put it another way: people from new backgrounds let you see your organization from a different angle. It's a rare and valuable service. If folks are going around and saying things that are earnestly meant to be supportive, but are being heard as diminutive or reductive, that's valuable data! You can learn to not do that! Take the feelings of outsiders who you would like to be insiders seriously - as primary source data - in order to grow your org beyond what it is now.