UJM- it’s not so clear that the halachos in SA and Rambam are clearly prohibiting teaching women parts of Torah. The Rambam and SA open up the halachos by saying that women receive sechar for learning Torah but not as much as man because she’s eino metzuveh v’oseh. And then brings down that Chazal commanded a father not teach his daughter Torah for the reasons in the Gemara. How do we reconcile these two statements? That women receive sechar for learning something that they are prohibited from doing? That would be very misleading by the Rambam and SA to say that if that were the case… why entice women to do something prohibited by telling they receive reward to do so? Or maybe that women are allowed to learn Torah and receive sechar for doing so but they just can’t be taught? That’s counterintuitive. Learning and being taught go hand in hand. If we are afraid that women will misrepresent halacha, then allowing them to learn without allowing them to be taught only exacerbates the problem. It’s only referring to parts of Torah that are practical to them? That also doesn’t seem correct because that’s Torah that they’re obligated in and the SA is clear that we’re talking about the parts of Torah that they aren’t obligated in.
There is clearly something that is not allowed, but it’s not as black and white as you make it sound. (Personally, I think what the Rambam and SA are saying is that a woman is allowed to learn, and is obviously therefore allowed to be taught. What’s not allowed is imposing on them to learn the Torah that they are exempt in, like having a required class in Gemara or Torah Shebe’al Peh… as opposed to boys who are all compelled to learn Gemara from a young age whether they want to or not. But if a women is motivated by the right reasons to expand her Torah knowledge, then I think that’s exactly what the SA and Rambam are saying that the receive sechar for and can certainly be taught)