Well it is really just semantics, so there is no right or wrong, and anyone can define what particular words mean to them.
But there are a couple of things that make me personally think software engineering is a misnomer.
Firstly, traditional engineering disciplines are generally pretty black and white. It is applied maths and science. If you build a bridge, you can use physics and maths to pretty much prove that it will handle a particular weight/load and so forth. Software development is rarely like that, and even if you are writing software for an engineer and therefore you could argue that you can prove the calculations the system is generating, it is really the problem domain that is engineering but the way the software is put together is not so easy to prove.
Secondly, I think the term actually does us a disservice. Software development requires intuition, craftsmanship, pragmatism, determination, adaptability, artistry. It also often requires understanding human nature, empathy for users, being able to learn and understand endless problem domains, an eye for the aesthetic. All of these things aren't generally required for traditional engineering disciplines.
The distinctions you are making are mere tendencies. Automotive engineering, for instance, requires everything on your list of software development traits—in spades.
I would say that the essence of engineering is a devotion to verifying that the design works like you think it works. Software development often lacks this devotion, but when it is there it is entirely proper to call it software engineering.
I think the big difference is that the civil engineer doesn't actually lay the cement himself, but the software engineer does. This has a lot of ramifications about how each approaches the problems and sees themselves in context.
There are plenty of different software engineering fields, it's just that it's usually just called "domain knowledge" and nobody outside the field makes the distinction.
One of my internships was at a company that did avionics software. Avionics is about as different from Web 2.0 startups as you can possibly get and stay in the same industry. There are very rigorous traceability metrics that pretty much dictate exactly what can go in the software. Every line of code has to be traced back to a particular paragraph in the design doc, which has to be traced back to a particular numbered requirement. Oftentimes garbage collection or even heap allocation is banned to avoid unbounded pauses in execution time. So the behavior of the code is fully specified under all conditions, and often formally verified. This was the one place I've ever worked where I'd hear "So we should write it in Ada then?"
I've also worked in the financial industry. Little known fact about the financial industry: it's not one industry but many. The code that you'd use to build a quant trading model is very different from the code you'd use to build a retail banking portal. The former actually tends to look a lot like academic research code (i.e. a software engineer would consider it shitty, but it has impressive math and gets the job done).
I work in consumer web now, but at Google. We actually do care about latency, and CPU load, and memory consumption, and developer productivity. And so it actually ends up being a lot like real engineering, where you perform experiments to measure the performance of the building blocks you're using, carefully consider goals and trade-offs, make estimates and back-of-the-envelope feasibility studies before implementing, and then rigorously test that solution.
This is in complete contrast to when I had my own casual gaming startup, where neither performance nor reliability mattered all that much, the only thing that did was the user interface.
But there are a couple of things that make me personally think software engineering is a misnomer.
Firstly, traditional engineering disciplines are generally pretty black and white. It is applied maths and science. If you build a bridge, you can use physics and maths to pretty much prove that it will handle a particular weight/load and so forth. Software development is rarely like that, and even if you are writing software for an engineer and therefore you could argue that you can prove the calculations the system is generating, it is really the problem domain that is engineering but the way the software is put together is not so easy to prove.
Secondly, I think the term actually does us a disservice. Software development requires intuition, craftsmanship, pragmatism, determination, adaptability, artistry. It also often requires understanding human nature, empathy for users, being able to learn and understand endless problem domains, an eye for the aesthetic. All of these things aren't generally required for traditional engineering disciplines.