After rewatching TOS a while back, I thought it'd be fun to have the girl-bot from "What Are Little Girls Made Of" as a member of a new ship's bridge crew. Discovery doesn't have something exactly comparable, but I'm enjoying how Michael is just as bad with interpersonal skills. There does also seem to be a female mechanoid of some kind on the bridge; I can't claim that DSC's writers had the same idea as me, but I have to admit I'm tickled at the prospect.
Have you seen TOS? Harry Mudd was selling women as sex slaves in his first appearance.
You're wrong twice.
First, if you're going to accuse anyone, it's actually Kirk who sells them. The main conflict hinges on the women being free to decline the arrangement, and the Enterprise being endangered if they do. (Accusing Mudd here is like accusing Picard for his role in "Up the Long Ladder.")
Second, the Original Series might have
wanted to write a story about sex slavery, but - perhaps because of contemporary sensibilities - they toned it down. What actually appears on screen is a story about three women who want to leave for greener pastures and contract a matchmaker to secure a suitable destination and passage. Quick googling turns up similar practices in the Yukon goldrush, an obvious match for TOS' "wagon train to the stars" motif.
Yes, you could deconstruct the historical practice of matchmaking, and yes, you can write a nearly-identical story in which the character of Mudd is replaced by an evil slaver, and yes, you could deconstruct the affable rogue archetype. I think it would be fine and fair for Discovery to try. But Mudd's appearances in DSC don't do it. You can't even argue that there's a parallel in him "selling out" his fellow humans! In TOS, Mudd was going to collect a fee for helping two willing parties see eye-to-eye, then holds a single ship hostage to secure his own liberty; in DSC's "Magic to Make the Sanest Man Go Mad," Mudd is working to no-one's benefit but his own, the thing he's selling wasn't provided to him willingly, and dooming the Discovery's crew is in no way necessary for his freedom (he already has that) or profit (he has ample other means and opportunity).
PS: it's possible that you're trying to make a point by being inexact and careless the same way cannonshop is being hyperbolic. If that's the case, I have to say that in my decade on these forums, I've not found it productive to match hyperbole with hyperbole. It too often reads as escalation.
Captain Georgious and Admiral Cornwall's very appearances in the show are a commentary and refutation of Turnabout, Intruder for example - even if the writers didn't intend it.
Commentary yes, but technically not a refutation. It isn't clear in that episode whether the "glass ceiling" really exists or if the crazy lady crying about a social injustice is in fact just a crazy lady.