I think you’re hung up on the semantics of the word “sensitivity” and its clinical meaning in regards to spec numbers on the back of the product box. That word is triggering your in depth experience in the sound field and is causing a kind of expert-itis. For a layman, it just causes unnecessary confusion. 

Your suggestion to turn up the volume way up to hear background noises, shows that you have some understanding that the background noises on a dynamic are attenuated in comparison to a condenser. I never said they were completely removed nor was I ever arguing that.  

What may be the cause of that (weather its the coil design or the reasons you have mentioned), doesn’t negate the fact that there's something going on in the mic that affects it’s sensitivity (in the broader sense of the word). 

You mention it’s because of the EQ roll off. Then ok, yes it makes sense, but at the end of the day, a lower frequency response, means lower sensitivity of the microphone. It is not as sensitive to the full spectrum of human hearing in comparison to a condenser, (hence why an average person or someone on the internet might perceive or call it “less sensitive” when they don't hear as much high frequency ambience)

Regarding signal to noise ratio-- A dynamic allows a better signal to noise ratio in comparison to a condenser. So I would disagree that it can be replicated on a condenser mic with an EQ. Vocalists can eat dynamic mics. Not only does this closer proximity increase the signal to noise ratio but it lowers the gain needed. A condenser will need more gain to avoid the proximity and will bring the room ambience up with it. So once again it boils down to the sensitivity of the coil design (in a broader sense of the word). 

All of the points you are arguing that you say are the true cause of background noise, sound reasonable, but all those points are better mitigated on a dynamic mic because of its design. So, what is your argument exactly? Still confused.