Why do some MTF's act like gay men?

[Morrigan]

the destination is there to be accepted, not ignored, discouraged, or slighted by the arrogance of self-acceptance.

arrogance of self-acceptance

arrogance of self-acceptance

arrogance of self-acceptance

Whatever drugs you are on, they are gooooooood.

Is anyone else around here sick of reading about fake science, terrible psychology,
and completely off-topic, offensive rhetoric?

This has nothing to do with gay men. If you say MTF's are like gay men, I won't
argue that a straight MTF has similarities, but I couldn't even comprehend half of
the responses in that last post.

[Annah]

arrogance of self-acceptance

arrogance of self-acceptance

arrogance of self-acceptance

Whatever drugs you are on, they are gooooooood.

Is anyone else around here sick of reading about fake science, terrible psychology,
and completely off-topic, offensive rhetoric?

This has nothing to do with gay men. If you say MTF's are like gay men, I won't
argue that a straight MTF has similarities, but I couldn't even comprehend half of
the responses in that last post.

ive tried to read her posts with an open mind. I've tried parsing her words, reading it one way and then another and I came to the conclusion that I do not think she even knows what she is writing. She's using "complicated words" but then spelling them wrong or writes the wrong word for the word she is meaning to say (organism = orgasm).

She is also writing down her version of facts that are found nowhere else in any scholarly book or article. These are the writings of someone who has a stereotypical mindset of what a man and a woman and how a man and a woman should act.

She's so convinced that her versions are truth because of her experiences. I really don't think the rest of the forums telling her if she is wrong is going to change her mind (even tho most of us would say "ok....i must be saying something inaccurate if the rest of the forums disagree with me").

[cynthialee]

She has gone so far down the rabbit hole that if she can not provide citations....
Then lock her out.

[Akashiya Moka]

Am I accused of being a part of the supposed ego contest? Because I fail to see how calling misinformation such is stoking one's ego and trying to feel intellectually superior, if I am.

You're only part of the supposed ego contest if you think this song is about you.

[rock chick]

maybe you could ask one to get a better answer?

[Miniar]

Okay, I've stayed out of this thread because... well, I've been busy, but now I've got to comment.

Sex is not all about orgasm, and its importance to women is the physical intimacy, the fun in fore-play and the pschological feelings from the act itself. It is standard male misconception that women also should orgasm every time like they do. If it come fine, if not, it is also fine. It is a none issue to women in majority.

You're right, but you're also absolutely horribly wrong.
It IS an issue to women whether or not they are able to orgasm.
Since you take "I've seen it posted on forums" as reasonable proof, here http://www.google.is/search?gcx=c&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=unable+to+orgasm+%22forum%22 have a simple google search that yielded about 28.600.000 results where majority of the results are women posting about their own concerns regarding their own inability to orgasm.

Yes, "sometimes" it doesn't matter if you orgasm or not, but it's not something that all women think, nor do all men want to orgasm every time, sometimes guys just want to be intimate too, orgasm being unnecessary.
Yes, it's a pretty big misconception that women have orgasms every time from penetrative sex, but it's also a complete falsehood that the orgasm is a de-facto "non issue" to all women.

If you have any link to any scientific research with which to back up your claims, please provide them.

Orgasm is heavily promoted by male stereotype misconception, men do have a desire for intimacy, love, and security, but it is entirely optional for intercource. 

This is also true, and utterly and completely false.
What's true is that men do need intimacy, love, and security.
What's false is "entirely optional"...

It a simple fact that when the male lost sexual interest in a woman, any force sex only bring displeasure. Male is a sexual being, even love is sexually motivated.

... No...
Love isn't more sexually motivated in men than it is in women.

If you have any scientific evidence to the contrary, cite it!

But for women, for relationship wise, intimacy, love, and security are of priority, physical attraction is optional, it is fine to have, it is fine not to have, since they derived pleasure in receptive mode, not in one's acting, or doing something to the women after being attracted visually by the woman.

Jacelyn... what did you just say....
Did you just say that women don't care whether their partners are physically attractive?
That they just enjoy being... well... used, by a man who's "nice"?
I mean...

"physical attraction" is not optional! If a woman is not physically/sexually attracted to a guy she will not enjoy having sex with him.
Women derive pleasure from their own actions as well, not just being used as a semen receptacle.

Honestly! This part of your post, it made me sick!
What you're preaching is a "like back and think of the flag" mentality as a "good" one!
It's rather repugnant!

Science lead to complexity and philosophy lead to simplicity.

You obviously do not know much at all about philosophy nor science!

Philosophy is the mother of science, it's the original science. The various sciences we have today are derived from philosophy.
Philosophy was initially directed at asking "why" and "how" of things that we had not asked these questions of before. Philosophy took the "simple" answer of saying that the gods did it and made it complicated by trying to work out things way beyond that.

Today, science is what tries to understand what we can measure, count, etc, etc, etc, while philosophy is left with the unanswerable questions, meaning that science is simpler (deals with things we can reliably consider true) while philosophy is more complicated (deals with no utter certainties what so ever).

One cannot strayed to science and ignored the philosophical part if one is to make sense of any discussion with the complexity of scientific technicalities.

This again is utter nonsense.

Neither gender and sexuality has to be complex if the simple binary gender mechanism is fully acknowledged as universal parameters for their variants.

...
You do realize that what you just said is terribly rude?
The "simple binary gender mechanism" you've described is not a "universal parameter" as it is;
- Not accurate nor real in any sense of the term.
- Does not take into account the demonstrable fact that non-heterosexual couples exist.
- Does not take into account the demonstrable fact that women have a sense of sexuality along with sexual attractions and sexual desires.
- Does not take into account the demonstrable fact that majority of women do desire the orgasm and will seek it.
- Does not take into account the demonstrable fact that transsexuals exist.
- Does not take into account the demonstrable fact that promiscuous women exist.
- Does not take into account the demonstrable fact that strictly monogamous men exist.
- Does not take into account the demonstrable fact that not everyone are born with standard external genitalia.

And so on and so forth.

Want to simplify things? Try starting with being accurate.

[Butterflyhugs]

Yea I stopped responding to Jacelyn a while back when I realized that 1) she really had no idea what she was talking about, and 2) she isn't interested in the least bit about refining her views to be more in line with reality.

[rock chick]

You're only part of the supposed ego contest if you think this song is about you.

was just watching the movie 'bout the runaways! love that song!

[tekla]

Philosophy is the mother of science, it's the original science. The various sciences we have today are derived from philosophy.
Philosophy was initially directed at asking "why" and "how" of things that we had not asked these questions of before. Philosophy took the "simple" answer of saying that the gods did it and made it complicated by trying to work out things way beyond that.

Yeah.  Kinda of.  Sort of.  Not really. 

[Jacelyn]

It IS an issue to women whether or not they are able to orgasm.
Yes, "sometimes" it doesn't matter if you orgasm or not, but it's not something
that all women think, nor do all men want to orgasm every time, sometimes guys
just want to be intimate too, orgasm being unnecessary.

Men have biological need for seminal release after a period of sexual abstinent,
and the pleasure is directly related to the presence of an attractive woman who
can excite him visually. This is the reason men like to masturbate by looking at
pronographic picture of such woman. The pleasure of the release is not as intense
and pleasant if visually there is absence of the attractive sexual object. Man
literally project all his emotion and energy into his member, and when these
accumulated emotion of lust/love explode in the release, the feeling is
uncomparable than by nature release without the emotional accumulation due to
visual excitation. Women don't have this biological need for sexual release and
the visual dependencies, and is contended to be on the receptor side of man's
sexual release (since he will project his love intensely in his own release), women
are sensitive to such momentary emotional release of men and can find
enjoyment in it physically and pschologically.

Yes, it's a pretty big misconception that women have orgasms every time
from penetrative sex, but it's also a complete falsehood that the orgasm is a de-
facto "non issue" to all women.

It only become an issue when orgasm is completely impossible (thus indicating a
medical condition), but orgasm is not the primary objective of a woman having
sex. Of course a man who spend the time and effort to make her come would be
appreciated by her. The differences between male and female in this area is
distinctive, the occasional lack of orgasm in the female is not indication of
abnormality, but if a man in any occassion failed to orgasm, it immediately
implicate a medical condition.

Reference:
http://www.sogc.org/health/health-myths_e.asp
"Many women enjoy the closeness and physical intimacy of sex and are satisfied

even if they do not, or do not always, have an orgasm."

This is also true, and utterly and completely false.
What's true is that men do need intimacy, love, and security.
What's false is "entirely optional"...
... No...
Love isn't more sexually motivated in men than it is in women.

As stated men have biological need for seminal release, and the pleasure is
directed related to visual excitation that has nothing to do with intimacy, love,
and security from a stable relationship. Men do have emotional need for intimacy,
love, and security, but these have nothing to do with his sexuality expression and
receptivity.

Reference:
http://site.themarriagebed.com/physiology-of-the-male-sex-drive
"Two glands, called the seminal vesicles, produce the majority of the fluid which
makes up semen. This fluid is stored in the seminal vesicles until an ejaculation is
about to occur. Think of the seminal vesicles as two small bladders; and like the
urinary bladder, they fill up. The fullness may or may not be noticeable as a slight
pressure inside the body (not the testes), but the body signals the brain that
release is needed. In a normal healthy man under 50, it takes 24 to 72 hours for
the vesicles to fill up. While not getting release doesn't result in damage to the
body, it can cause a sense of discomfort and make the fellow "grumpy." This is one
biological reason a man feels a regular need for release."

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/features/2010/1102/1224282474265.html
"I don't think it is exactly earth shattering to discover that women are not as
interested in sex as men are. Libraries of scientific data exist confirming exactly
that. Men have a much stronger chemical response to sexual stimuli."

http://www.growthtrac.com/artman/publish/why-women-need-romance-463.php
"An unknown portion of this romantic need in women is probably related to
genetic influences implemented by the hypothalamus region in the brain. Beyond
this, the characteristic features probably result from differences in early
experiences of girls and boys. The entire orientation for little girls in our society is
toward romantic excitement."

Did you just say that women don't care whether their partners are
physically attractive?
That they just enjoy being... well... used, by a man who's "nice"?
I mean...
"physical attraction" is not optional! If a woman is not physically/sexually
attracted to a guy she will not enjoy having sex with him.

I don't exclude physically attractiveness such as height, broad shoulders in the
male, but these are physical features are less critical in a woman's demand than in
the man's demand for the partner's physical attractiveness. The latter is due to the
male sexuality mechanism. Women can easily find financial security, positive /
pleasant character in the man as attractive feature for acceptance of the
relationship. Men don't really care about what job the woman has, her past and so
on, if she attracts him physically.

Women derive pleasure from their own actions as well, not just being used as a
semen receptacle.

As mentioned the woman's sexual enjoyment is receptive, there is no object of
sexual attraction nor the requirement (she doesn't get arouse sexually by the
presence of the man, but get aroused after being touched, hearing his sweet voice,
smelling his scent and so on), the pleasure is her body's sensory perception and
emotional feeling in intimacy. Without the devise for immediate arousal, and
pleasure through physical moves, a woman is not sexually aggresive by biological
design. A man on the contrary, upon seeing an attractive woman, he can
immediately aroused (erected) and immediately be on top of her and derived
pleasure by the actions perform upon her with his body.

Philosophy is the mother of science, it's the original science. The various sciences
we have today are derived from philosophy.

Not necessary, sometime friction novels and religious faiths can motivate
curiousity leading to scientific discovery. Scientific breakthrough and innovation
required doubts of existing theories and extensive brain-storming activities. There
is no conclusion in science, it is a never ending road of skeptism and complexity.
Complexity is in various data of elements that constitutes causes and results of
experiments and practical applications. There is no understanding of the general
philosophical picture underlying these various elements.

Philosophy was initially directed at asking "why" and "how" of things that
we had not asked these questions of before. Philosophy took the "simple" answer
of saying that the gods did it and made it complicated by trying to work out
things way beyond that.

Making things more complicated does not exclusively define what philosophy is.
Philosophy is aimed at understanding matters in logical coherant context,
whether it is to simplify the complex, or to proliferate the simple to inclusive its
fuller scope. But it doesn't lead to infinite, ungraspable complexity with an
unknown factors (doubts) as the case of scientific technicalities.

Today, science is what tries to understand what we can measure, count, etc,
etc, etc, while philosophy is left with the unanswerable questions, meaning that
science is simpler (deals with things we can reliably consider true) while
philosophy is more complicated (deals with no utter certainties what so ever).
This again is utter nonsense.

Depend on your philosophy, if yours has unanswerable questions, it is not logically
coherant with existing concepts, nor these concept are validly established. In other
words, you are still speculating a half truth and called it philosophy.

You do realize that what you just said is terribly rude?

So anything in disagreement with your views is called rude. You merely expecting
an unconditional agreement, not intellectual discussion.

The "simple binary gender mechanism" you've described is not a "universal
parameter" as it is;
- Not accurate nor real in any sense of the term.

Try to refute the biological and pschological distinctions first before rendered it
inaccurate.

- Does not take into account the demonstrable fact that non-heterosexual couples
exist.

You are mistaken. Non-heterosexual couples also taken account here as male vs.
male, female vs. female combination, which is supported as variants (the four
alternative pairings of the gender binary) by the default gender binary of male
and female.

- Does not take into account the demonstrable fact that women have a sense of
sexuality along with sexual attractions and sexual desires.

This is being taken into account as the receptive (female) mode of human sexual
response.

- Does not take into account the demonstrable fact that majority of
women do desire the orgasm and will seek it.

It is being taken in account as having biological difficulty in comparison with the
male. And that such desire is not entirely relevent to lack of sexual satisfaction.

- Does not take into account the demonstrable fact that transsexuals
exist.

Both MFT and FTM are taken into account as the two subjective variants within
the default binary gender (self identity as male or female).

- Does not take into account the demonstrable fact that promiscuous
women exist.

As mentioned previously, the simple mentioned of the term 'women' refer to the
majority, but the usage does not exclude the existence of the special minority. But
minority cannot be taken as standard parameters for judgement which aimed at
universal consensus.

- Does not take into account the demonstrable fact that strictly
monogamous men exist.

This has being taken into account as special cases. But the discussion is aimed at
revealing male's universal behaviourial pattern.

- Does not take into account the demonstrable fact that not everyone are
born with standard external genitalia.

Abnormal physical development exists as biological variants which is also taken
into account.

[Sailor_Saturn]

You're only part of the supposed ego contest if you think this song is about you.

Sorry, being accused of still bearing masculine characteristics is a sore spot for me. I really had my feelings hurt. Not a big thing, but it's true.

[Sailor_Saturn]

Oh, what a mess this has become. My screen just exploded from Jacelyn's MASSIVE post! WHAT HAS SCIENCE DO----NE?!!!! O_O

[Butterflyhugs]

As for those "sources,":

1) themarrieagebed.com is a site containing "Biblical information about sex and intimacy for married or soon to be married christians" (To be honest, I Lol'd)

2) In the irishtimes.com article, the writer's talking about the same man who also said this: ""I feel sorry for straight men. The only reason women will have sex with them is that sex is the price they are willing to pay for a relationship with a man, which is what they want."

3) Your growthtrac.com article is talking about marriage (specifically how to maintain a healthy marriage with romance), and makes no mention of relationships in any other context (like a woman looking for casual sex on a saturday night out or casual dating in general--which is what we've been discussing)

4) Your sogc.org quote that many women still enjoy sex without always having an orgasm does not directly support your statement that orgasms aren't important to women at all.

Still laughing about themarriagebed.com by the way...

[tekla]

"Many women enjoy the closeness and physical intimacy of sex and are satisfied even if they do not, or do not always, have an orgasm."

Oh yeah.  You can see their happy faces all over town, but mostly at Good Vibrations.  I know several who forgo the entire deal if they aren't going to get the complete package, and yes they do gain intimacy from other kinds of activities, but if they can get one of those eye-rolling, back scratching, toe-curling OhMyGodOhMyGod kind of shaggs, they will take it, and they do like it.

Fact is, that at different ages and times in their lives men and women have a wide and huge variation in sexual activity and sexual notions.  It's all cute and all that you can divide it into 'men' who are all like A, and 'women' who are all like B - no matter what - but it doesn't work out so well in real life.

[Butterflyhugs]

Just go to themarriagebed.com, it'll tell you all you need to know. Right Jacelyn?

Sex for men and women straight from the Bible! Where could you go wrong?!

[Forever21Chic]

Still laughing about themarriagebed.com by the way...

  I've been laughing about this thread since page 1.   

You guys take debating to a whole new level. 

[Butterflyhugs]

  I've been laughing about this thread since page 1.   

You guys take debating to a whole new level. 

It's brain exercise 

[Forever21Chic]

It's brain exercise 

Lol...i stopped reading after page 4. 

[Miniar]

Men have biological need for seminal release after a period of sexual abstinent,
and the pleasure is directly related to the presence of an attractive woman who
can excite him visually.

Unless he's gay.
Gay men experience zero arousal from looking at attractive women.
This is one of the ways you're failing to take into account the fact that non-heterosexual people exist.

This is the reason men like to masturbate by looking at
pronographic picture of such woman.

Unless he's gay... or blind.

It only become an issue when orgasm is completely impossible (thus indicating a
medical condition), but orgasm is not the primary objective of a woman having
sex.

I take it you didn't look at any of the posts from women regarding their difficulty reaching orgasm?
It is an issue even if it's situational and many of these posts revolve around women looking for ways to orgasm during sex with their partners.
As such, these women would disagree with you.

Of course a man who spend the time and effort to make her come would be
appreciated by her.

To quote your own source (http://www.sogc.org/health/health-myths_e.asp)
"While there are many ways a loving partner can help a woman reach orgasm, in the end, a woman is responsible for her own sexual pleasure. That does not mean her partner should not be involved. Communication between partners is very important. It is up to the woman to inform her partner her likes and dislikes in their love making."

The differences between male and female in this area is
distinctive, the occasional lack of orgasm in the female is not indication of
abnormality, but if a man in any occassion failed to orgasm, it immediately
implicate a medical condition.

This is incorrect.
"Anorgasmia is defined as failure to experience an orgasm." (note the word "an" not "any" just "an")
About 8% of men suffer from Anorgasmia. (source)
It is estimated that around 90 per cent of anorgasmia problems are related to psychological issues.(source)
"Patients with male orgasmic disorder can achieve firm erections and have normal sexual intercourse with penetration. Some patients reporting male orgasmic disorder with intercourse can achieve orgasm through manual or oral stimulation or at least report orgasm through nocturnal emissions (ie, "wet dreams")." (source)

Reference:
http://www.sogc.org/health/health-myths_e.asp
"Many women enjoy the closeness and physical intimacy of sex and are satisfied even if they do not, or do not always, have an orgasm."

"Affectionate hugs trigger the release of brain endorphins, which medical experts claim have an even more powerful effect on our sense of well-being than heroin or morphine. A recent Kinsey Report has turned traditional Western views about men and women upside down. The report says men need more hugs and tenderness in long-term relationships, while women lean more toward sexual satisfaction."(source)

Reference:
http://site.themarriagebed.com/physiology-of-the-male-sex-drive
"While not getting release doesn't result in damage to the
body, it can cause a sense of discomfort and make the fellow "grumpy." This is one
biological reason a man feels a regular need for release."

Two words, nocternal emissions.
That is to say, if one doesn't masterbate, or have sex, the body will ejaculate on it's own.
No, there's no research what so ever that backs up the claim made on this entirely nonscientific webpage that I can find, but if you can find it, go ahead and link it.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/features/2010/1102/1224282474265.html
"I don't think it is exactly earth shattering to discover that women are not as
interested in sex as men are. Libraries of scientific data exist confirming exactly
that. Men have a much stronger chemical response to sexual stimuli."

"Perhaps not. Fisher, Moore, and Pittenger (2011) set out to substantiate the axiom of men's hyperactive sexual cognitions. Female and male undergraduates used tally counters to record the number of times that they thought about sex, food, or sleep over the course of a week. The results indicated that, yes, men thought about sex modestly more frequently than women did. However, men also thought about both food and sleep significantly more often than women did. Thus, men reported a greater number of personal-need-based thoughts than did women overall."
&
"Do women desire and actually have fewer sexual partners than do men? No, gender differences in reported sexual partners stem less from sexual appetites and more from inappropriate use and interpretation of statistics and social desirability."
(source)

http://www.growthtrac.com/artman/publish/why-women-need-romance-463.php
"An unknown portion of this romantic need in women is probably related to
genetic influences implemented by the hypothalamus region in the brain. Beyond
this, the characteristic features probably result from differences in early
experiences of girls and boys. The entire orientation for little girls in our society is
toward romantic excitement."

"Conventional wisdom suggests that men and women have different dating goals. Men want a partner who is sexy (i.e., physically attractive), whereas women want a partner with high status (Buss, 1989; Buss & Schmitt, 1993). This notion is often supported by examining young adults' ideal mates (see Eastwick & Finkel, 2008, for a review). And, one assumes, we need to look no further than the routine relationships of octogenarian Hugh Hefner with Playboy models a fraction of his age for supportive (albeit anecdotal) real-world evidence.
But what happens when we empirically consider perceptions of potential partners that participants have met in person? Eastwick and Finkel (2008) hosted a series of speed-dating events in which participants rated the importance of attractiveness and status among the individuals with whom they interacted. Contrary to conventional wisdom, when the object of one's potential affection shifted from ideal to actual, gender differences in preferred qualities of partners disappeared. Specifically, attractiveness and status were found to be equally important to men and women when considering actual dating partners (both in initial speed-dating encounters and a month after those encounters) across a variety of dependent measures (Eastwick & Finkel, 2008). Moreover, gender differences in preferences for status and attractiveness were absent in the judgments of current romantic partners as well (Eastwick, Finkel, & Eagly, in press).
Bottom line: Do women and men have gender-specific preferences for qualities of partners? Not in real-world contexts, which are presumably more valid than hypothetical musings."
(source)

I don't exclude physically attractiveness such as height, broad shoulders in the
male, but these are physical features are less critical in a woman's demand than in
the man's demand for the partner's physical attractiveness.

for women, for relationship wise, intimacy, love, and security are of priority, physical attraction is optional,

Your words.

The latter is due to the
male sexuality mechanism. Women can easily find financial security, positive /
pleasant character in the man as attractive feature for acceptance of the
relationship.

"Bottom line: Do women and men have gender-specific preferences for qualities of partners? Not in real-world contexts, which are presumably more valid than hypothetical musings."
(source)

Men don't really care about what job the woman has, her past and so
on, if she attracts him physically.

"Bottom line: Do women and men have gender-specific preferences for qualities of partners? Not in real-world contexts, which are presumably more valid than hypothetical musings."
(source)

As mentioned the woman's sexual enjoyment is receptive, there is no object of
sexual attraction nor the requirement (she doesn't get arouse sexually by the
presence of the man, but get aroused after being touched, hearing his sweet voice,
smelling his scent and so on), the pleasure is her body's sensory perception and
emotional feeling in intimacy.

"Men are drawn to visual erotica, explaining the lure of magazines such as Playboy. Meanwhile female desire is supposedly fueled by a richer cognitive and emotional texture. "Women experience desire as a result of the context in which they are inserted—whether they feel comfortable with themselves and the partner, feel safe and perceive a true bond with the partner," opines urologist Jennifer Berman of the Female Sexual Medicine Center at the University of California, Los Angeles.

Yet sexual imagery devoid of emotional connections can arouse women just as it can men, a 2007 study shows. Psychologist Meredith Chivers of the Center for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto and her colleagues gauged the degree of sexual arousal in about 100 women and men, both homosexual and heterosexual, while they watched erotic film clips. The clips depicted same-sex intercourse, solitary masturbation or nude exercise—performed by men and women—as well as male-female intercourse and mating between bonobos (close ape relatives of the chimpanzee).

The researchers found that although nude exercise genitally aroused all the onlookers the least and intercourse excited them the most, the type of actor was more important for the men than for the women. Heterosexual women's level of arousal increased along with the intensity of the sexual activity largely irrespective of who or what was engaged in it. In fact, these women were genitally excited by male and female actors equally and also responded physically to bonobo copulation. (Gay women, however, were more particular; they did not react sexually to men masturbating or exercising naked.)"
(source)

Without the devise for immediate arousal, and
pleasure through physical moves, a woman is not sexually aggresive by biological
design.

"Sprecher and other sex researchers speculate that society's norms suggest that men should pursue and women should be pursued. The result may be that women tend to be less comfortable initiating sex."
&
"The information about initiation was then compared to how couples rated their sexual satisfaction. Partners who reported equal initiation and female initiation patterns also tended to report greater sexual satisfaction for both partners. This finding, according to Sprecher, is also consistent with other studies suggesting that relationships with the most balance are the most satisfying."
(source)

"A belief that one will be stigmatized harshly partially explains gender differences in casual sex. Gender differences are minimized when women feel that they can avoid being stigmatized for their behavior.
Most strikingly, when both proposer sexual capabilities and stigma associated with participation in casual sex are accounted for, the giant gender differences in acceptance evaporate completely."
(source)

A man on the contrary, upon seeing an attractive woman, he can
immediately aroused (erected) and immediately be on top of her and derived
pleasure by the actions perform upon her with his body.

Again, unless he's GAY!

Not necessary, sometime fiction novels and religious faiths can motivate
curiousity leading to scientific discovery.

The curiosity may begin the scientific process, but without the actual scientific process, no discovery is made.

Making things more complicated does not exclusively define what philosophy is.

Nor did I say so.

Philosophy is aimed at understanding matters in logical coherant context,
whether it is to simplify the complex, or to proliferate the simple to inclusive its
fuller scope. But it doesn't lead to infinite, ungraspable complexity with an
unknown factors (doubts) as the case of scientific technicalities.

"Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument. The word "philosophy" comes from the Greek φιλοσοφία (philosophia), which literally means "love of wisdom"."

Tell me, what is the meaning of life? Why is there something rather than nothing? What is knowledge? What is consciousness?
These are all very common philosophical questions. They are aimed at things which we can never find a solid, provable, demonstrable answer to.

Yes, science requires doubt, but it also requires measurable evidence, "proof", before anything asserted as scientifically valid is accepted by the scientific commuinty at all. Philosophy doesn't deal with things that are demonstrable, measurable, etcetera and therefore it's impossible to assert a philosophical stance or argument as "truth".

Depend on your philosophy, if yours has unanswerable questions, it is not logically
coherant with existing concepts, nor these concept are validly established. In other
words, you are still speculating a half truth and called it philosophy.

There is no such thing as "truth" in philosophy.

So anything in disagreement with your views is called rude. You merely expecting
an unconditional agreement, not intellectual discussion.

No, it's not. Thank you for the ad hominem.
The specific statement is rude for the reasons expressed.

Try to refute the biological and pschological distinctions first before rendered it
inaccurate.

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. This means that when you assert, directly or indirectly, that the simple binary gender mechanism is the unversal parameter that the burden of proof lies on you to not only demonstrate that gender is binary and simple but that it also is applicable universally (universal parameter).

In other words, I can assert your claim to be inaccurate if you've failed to prove it without assuming the burden of proof as you've failed to meet the burden of proof yourself.

But, since you asked so nicely;
Gender taxonomy includes;
* chromosomes (46,XX; 46,XY; 47,XXY ("Klinefelter's syndrome"); 45,X0 ("Turner syndrome"); 47,XYY; 47,XXX ("Triple X syndrome"); XXXX syndrome; XXXXX syndrome, 48,XXYY syndrome, 46,XX/XY mosaic, other mosaic, and others)
* gonads (testes, ovaries, one of each, ovotestes, other types of gonadal dysgenesis)
* hormones
* genitals (primary sexual characteristics — see diagram for the "six class system")
* secondary sexual characteristics
* brain structure
* gender identity
* gender role
* erotic preference

Since there are people who's gender identity is neither male nor female, it is fair to say that there aren't just those two gender identities. If there are other gender identities, then gender isn't a simple binary where everyone is either male or female.
If gender were a "simple" binary, then everyone would be either male or female and no other variations would exist outside of those two classifications though there could be some variation within such classifications.

You are mistaken. Non-heterosexual couples also taken account here as male vs.
male, female vs. female combination, which is supported as variants (the four
alternative pairings of the gender binary) by the default gender binary of male
and female.

Not when you define males as "attracted to females" and females as "receptive to male sexual attention".

This is being taken into account as the receptive (female) mode of human sexual
response.

See, just proved my point.
If all female persons are "receptive" then what is lesbian sex?
If all female persons are "receptive" then how do they "pursue" their own sexual pleasure?

It is being taken in account as having biological difficulty in comparison with the
male. And that such desire is not entirely relevent to lack of sexual satisfaction.

That is not taking this into account but brushing it off as irrelevant.

Both MFT and FTM are taken into account as the two subjective variants within
the default binary gender (self identity as male or female).

By defining males as strictly as you have, using references to their sexual arousal pattern and genitals specifically, you've inadvertedly defined all trans women as men.
Hencem your definitions do not take transsexuals into account.

As mentioned previously, the simple mentioned of the term 'women' refer to the
majority, but the usage does not exclude the existence of the special minority. But
minority cannot be taken as standard parameters for judgement which aimed at
universal consensus.

Unless it applies universally, it isn't universal, therefore it does not take into account those that do not conform to what you are calling a universal standard.

This has being taken into account as special cases. But the discussion is aimed at
revealing male's universal behaviourial pattern.

It's not universal unless it applies Universally.

Abnormal physical development exists as biological variants which is also taken
into account.

It's not universal unless it applies Universally.

You can't say "All X are Y", holding it up as a "universal standard", and then when people call you on how inaccurate that is and that not all X are Y, citing sources and examples to back them up say that just because not all X are Y that all X are still Y...
I mean, that's just intellectually dishonest!

[JenJen2011]

I don't know why people keep dissecting Jacelyn's posts. She's never gonna stop. And it's all still irrelevant to the topic.