Regarding the worries about the depiction of female characters: as a woman myself, I think -- as mentioned above -- Martin's development of characters such as Catelyn and Sansa are accurate. In such a society, women would have to maneuver more behind the scenes and in less obvious ways than men. And anyway, there are no dearth of strong female characters -- Arya, Catelyn, Danerys, Melisandre. In fact the women are often the ones driving the action, even if they are not out in the field themselves.

Now that I've read about Martin's background in TV writing I have a sneaking suspicion that's exactly why I didn't like it.

But for what it's worth I do think it's an obvious TV series - and it could be done amazingly on TV. I'd definitely give it a view, and I did like the first book anyway - that's before it went downhill for me.

The _two_ lesbian sex scenes are not, to my mind, sufficient to support a claim that they were inserted for titillation only. They are both very tame. They are also well balanced with incestuous sex, incestuous sexual interaction, bisexuality and male homosexuality, amongst other even less savory but arguablly 'titillating' sexual scenes. It is hard to deny sex is part of the human condition, and it would be harder still to accept the world as realistic if female-female sexuality didn't exist anywhere.

I'm not sure exactly how it is that female characters are supposedly portrayed as more beautiful than male characters. Is it that there are insufficient numbers of female characters who are described as plain or ugly? Because to that, off the top of my head, amongst the more major characters, you have Arya, Brienne, Ygritte and Lysa - and that's discounting the minor characters such as Lolys, Shireen and uncountable Freys. Or is it that there are not sufficient male characters described as attractive? Because again, you have Loras, Renly, Beric (at least to start...), Oberyn and, perhaps the most blatant example, Jaime. Even Joffrey is often described as beautiful, though that is generously salted with his inner hideousness.

As to marginalization of adult females, I think there is also ample evidence to the contrary. Catelyn, Cersei, Lysa, Melisandre, Brienne and the Queen of Thornes all play pivotal and powerful roles. While these characters will alternately be portrayed (often dependent entirely on who is narrating) as simpering, craven, maniacal, idiotic or downright evil, they aren't marginalized by the narrative itself, only by the world described by the narrative. In fact much of their narrative arcs describe their personal battles against that marginalization - which is the essence of doing anything but marginalizing their characters to the reader. There are also countless smaller-role female characters that all have pretty profound effects; Septa Mordane, nearly any female from Asshai, the lady Mormonts, the Sand Snakes, and so on.

Finally, there is the charge of lack of female to female interaction, 'especially non-titillating [examples]'. I will concur that there are fewer female-female interactions in general, but I don't think it's out of proportion to the overall described population. There are many more male characters in the story - helpful, actually, given their higher mortality. Further, the interactions between females are rarely titillating. The sister-sister interactions are pretty awesome; Lysa and Catelyn (though indirect/in the past), and Sansa and Arya for example. But there are also great interactions between the Queen of Thornes, Margaery and Sansa, between Daenerys and the Maegi, between Cersei and Sansa, between Lysa and Sansa, Catelyn and Jeyne Westerling, Brienne and Catelyn, etc. I do not think that, as a whole, the series lacks for powerful female interactions.

If anything, I think these examples speak directly to your point; the female characters are subtly described. On the whole, they are no less successful than their male counterparts (can you name a male character who achieves their goals for more than a few moments?) - and arguably more successful. I think it is hard to support the claim that Martin is harder on them than on the male characters; they rise and fall just like the rest; just like the rest they are usually solitary islands in a sea of opponents. I think this is a strength of Martin's writing, not a weakness, that the women are treated the same by the author, if not by the world narrated.

For that reason, I think that the charges of sexism are overblown - and perhaps more a measure of the sexism of the readership than of the author, as you say. Even the best counterexamples of this are weak at best.