You flatterer! But I love it!
The facts of the Bible scientists are clear: Women had priestly church positions, like deacon, l Elder or apostle and evangelist. Most of these ecclesiastical offices do not exist today any more. Or being understood and practiced differently (e.g. the LDS or the NAC). I found a little very much interesting about this on the Internet:
http://www.faithdefenders.com/church-life/WomenEldersintheEarlyChurch.html
http://spectrummagazine.org/node/2305
http://www.theologyforwomen.org/2010/04/women-deacons.html
I appreciate the sources. Granted, these are of course biased, but I don't blame you for that--I've provided biases sources too. The best we can do is review them and do further research outside of that.
That said, some of this is either misinterpretation or broadly stated outside of the specific term "deacon" or even "ordained."
For instance, the sacrament of Vocation (aside from marriage) means entering into the priesthood. This means people who being friar, sisters, nuns, monks, and even deacons (this being within the Catholic Church) are not entering into a vocation, but are entering into a religious order.
Ecclesiastical offices (including religious orders) are flooded with women -- both religious and secular (secular meaning laity. For instance, there are secular Franciscans; Franciscans who are laypersons. Many people from my parish are secular Franciscans). But for example, women who run orders of nuns or sisters (Nuns are cloistered, like Carmelites, and Sisters are not) are called Mother Superiors. However, a mother superior is not an authority for her diocese. The authority for any given diocese is a bishop. A deacon or catechist, man or woman (women can be catechists), are not authority figures, still work in service.
The sources you provided gave interesting points, but I think there were some misinterpretations. I'm not one who sides with Sola Scriptura doctrine first off. However, this doesn't mean I think scripture can be put aside either (but I digress). One example where I think there was some misunderstanding is where one source you shared said that women being deacons is Biblical. It referenced 1 Timothy 3:8-13, and put emphasis on verse 11 where it says "Women in like manner must be grave, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things." But for each other verse, it doesn't address the deacons as "men." It addresses them as deacons -- their being men was implied. Verse 11 expressed that women, like deacons, but be grave, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things." It's very important to read verses surrounding the forefront verse in dispute in order to avoid mistranslations.
Another of your sources made a statement saying "It's true the apostles were only men, but they were also only Jews, and clergy can be made up of gentiles, and therefore..." But this isn't quite accurate either. It's not 100% confirmed, but 99 to 1 speculate that Luke was gentile.
See here.
Ultimately, early writings of "deaconesses" and such, like I mentioned prior, was in regards to catechists. Today, we could refer to them as laity catechists or sisters/nuns.
But many of these points can be reviewed here. Again--these are a biased perspective, like yours, but maybe it will allow you to look even further into these points outside of biases. It should at least provide a rationale to the argument of why women are not ordained as priests (and in some denominations, pastors).
Some denominations agree with your statement though that women can be ordained. Namely the Anglican Church and the Episcopalian Church. The rationale for why women should be ordained is noted, and I'm more than familiar to it, but I think there is a stronger case against the argument which ultimately is the righteous one. It's not a point of being chauvinistic or elitist.
.
.
.
.
.
