Some biblically conservative scholars disagree with your interpretation without "twisting" anything. It is a more complicated issue that many like to admit.
"Political correctness" has little to do with a biblically conservative argument for female apostles, pastors and deacons. It comes straight from the gospels, the Book of Acts, and the writings of Paul. You may disagree, but that's where the position has its root.
As I have recommended previously, if you want to read a biblically conservative analysis of Paul's position regarding female leadership in the church, I suggest reading
E. Earle Ellis' book, "Pauline Theology: Ministry and Society."
For the last 25 years of his life, Dr. Ellis taught at Southwestern Theological Seminary at the pleasure of the Presidents (including Ken Hemphill and Paige Patterson) where he engaged in teaching and research. He described himself to me as more conservative than Paige Patterson, and was anything but PC. (For example, he hated translations of scripture that changed a masculine noun to a gender-neutral noun on the basis of context, because he did not like the translation making that interpretation for the reader.) But at the same time, Ellis was driven to open up the teachings of the Pauline community and make them understandable to the church in this age, and felt compelled - because of the meaning of scripture - to be an advocate for female participation in church leadership.
You may disagree with him on this issue (I disagreed with Earle on a number of issues, but thought he was correct on this one), but you can't simply brush it off as someone being PC or not taking scripture seriously.