What you listed above is basically the technobabble version of character development. When you show that quote to someone who doesn't know Star Trek, you'll get a "what the hell do I care" reaction. That she teached xenolinguistics or developed universal translator algorithms or that she is fluent in three languages is just background information noise, you could replace it with something else and it wouldn't add or take away anything. What matters is what they do, and what they do isn't much.
When they are not acting as damsel in distress, they are the love interest, and when they are supposed to be strong women, they run around in skintight catsuits or miniskirts.
What relevance does it have that we've chosen to use Star Trek terminology on a Star Trek forum? Where is the technobabble in being an expert in foreign languages, speaking a great deal of them, having the knowledge and expertise to train or tune a complicated translation computer program, being a critical translator in diplomatic missions under extreme stress and overcoming one's own fears in face of great danger? A non-Trek fan can understand that just fine me thinks. People have the remarkable ability to catch what's happening on screen outside of explicit dialogue and images of legs, boobs, muscles and bloodshed. That's a dishonest way to dismiss the accomplishments of the characters. Why do you wish to ignore everything they've actually done?
TOS had a habit of bigging up the women as highly qualified and then using them as sex objects e.g. Ann Mulhall, Carolyn Palamis, Christine Chapel, Marlena Moreau etc. Uhura really stands out, Charlene Masterson was pretty cool, Helen Noel walks the line, and most of the yeomen don't even pretend to be highly qualified. I do have a soft spot for Miranda Jones though - far more interesting than a betazoid and she managed to resist Kirk's charm.