Firstly, since you wear a mask, you are not part of the problem, but you've been influenced by those who are. So let's evaluate your evidence:

Japanese study is irrelevant due to N being 2 colds over 32 people. Looks like kids transmitted more colds than workplace. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19216002/

Cowling, B. et al. (2010) finds evidence of reduced transmission and less of reduced infection. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and it's irrelevant to my argument whether masks protect self. Moreover, it's obvious that masks do protect self for general public, if only by inhibiting hand to mucus membrane contact.

bin-Reza et al. (2012) same.

Smith, J.D. et al. (2016) finds no benefit for N95 over surgical masks, which supports my argument for comfortable public mask usage, and is otherwise irrelevant.

Offeddu, V. et al. (2017): Your summary contradicts the abstract, which states

"Meta-analysis of observational studies provided evidence of a protective effect of masks (OR = 0.13; 95% CI: 0.03–0.62) ... against severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)."

This is wasting my time. I'll stop there.

Furthermore, if there were any benefit to wearing a mask, because of the blocking power against droplets and aerosol particles, then there should be more benefit from wearing a respirator (N95) compared to a surgical mask

Nonsense. There are malefits to wearing a respirator which have unknown effects on mask utility. I do not recommend N95 masks for general public use. They are more expensive and complicated and thus may get changed and cleaned less frequently, causing harm. And they may reduce oxygen availability. They're overkill.

https://science.slashdot.org/story/20/07/18/0139209/face-masks-offer-more-protection-from-coronavirus-than-many-think

That's not machismo; it's recognizing tyrannical speech suppression for what it is.

Refusing to wear masks due to pro-masker censorship is macho reactance.

Your objections are exposed as sophistical. There is no more sound basis to challenge public anti-epidemial mask use than there is to challenge hand washing, and this fact is obvious common sense. Picking this issue to argue for free speech is self-defeating, since prevailing heretical misinformation is already costing lives. The correct approach is to discredit MSM sources for their early denial of mask effectiveness motivated by PPE shortage, and establish independent heterodox source credibility by advocating practical 80-20 voluntary public mask use. There is a happy medium between East Asian neurotic mask culture and American macho mask rejection.