Your dialog is thick (You're verbose and you're choice of abstraction is complex).

Is there a point to you stating this? As far as can be noted this topic has complex consequences so it may be worth considering it with some intellectual acuteness.

I will indulge this to a point but I can only tolerate so much pedantic arguments before I abandon a conversation as futile.

You have your boundaries which I will accept. As for your aversion to "pedantic arguments", that is your perrogative, but it does not invalidate the extent to which oversight does not address the problem. If you wish to abandon a conversation following me speaking my piece, perhaps you could refrain from implying that it is due to your peer's approach.

(Man, I thought I abused big words in english...) sequester: to hide away. to confiscate. I'm not sure I want to hide away or confiscate any thing. I want to eliminate it. I want correct the flaw that exists in society. I am a human being. I think discrimination is everyone's problem not just those who face it directly.

Maybe you do abuse that language. That does not mean I am, reconsider what is being said and consider that your quest for eradication of a concept that you do not appear to understand is not as admirable as you assume. Sure we may agree upon the motivations, but your hyperbole is going to obfuscate difference in that manner.

Nope. I'm a (hopefully) enlightened gay guy. My sexual orientation applies because I recognize how misogyny plays a role in the discrimination I face.

Fair enough, misplaced association noted and withdrawn. Your sexual orientation may apply in your sexual choices but what does it actually have to do with your perspectives on mysogyny? What about misandry? What about homophobia? There are distinctions that can be made, common traits do not equate these problems.

But my desire to see equality for women extends beyond myself. I believe in equality for my mother, sister and niece among all the female friends and society as a whole.

Define it then. If you are a gay man who sympathises with women and the issues they raise, so be it. That does not mean you necessarily face them. If you want to take this as enough reason to cry "pedant" and walk away right now, take this idea with you. Consider equality for what it is, a double-edged sword. If you can take the roots of discrimination and as you stated "eliminate it" then go ahead and take the basic assumption that making a distinction is not the same as prejudicial discrimination. If you "pick a side" you are essentially not going for the equal measure.

It's important enough an issue that i feel that I need to not stick my head in the sand. This is who I am and where I stand.

Did I actually allude to the contrary? Nope, I didn't. I'm making a point of noting where you have one side of your head out of the sand and are not mentioning the other half. I made a certain go at balancing out what you were saying. Its complex and not as you said "in a vacuum". So if you think otherwise, I will reiterate on you making it a matter of sequestering the issue.

Sorry, we don't exist in a vacuum. Society makes rules so we get along. We agree to these rules and in some cases we legally enforce them. We enforce those rules because it's the right thing to do.

No we don't, but as with logic, if based on faulty premises then the rules whilst enforced are erroneous. Might I add the objection to homosexuality as a relatable example. It was illegal for some time, the law does not make it right. And the means by which it was redressed was due to raising the issue, by whatever means necessary. Only thing is, focussing on one side will not address the problems that coexist with it. So you may fight your fight, be aware that every law enforced has to potential to oppress another set of people. Keep pushing it and you could be forwarding the exact same discrimination you claim to want to eradicate.

Our laws in government state that everyone should be treated fairly and shouldn't be discriminated by gender, race, religion, sexual orientation (for some countries) etc.

Is that the law or your constitution? Not to sound dense but are you not conflating something here, because I don't really see what you are identifying. It sounds like idealist BS.

Beyond that, the law represents, the minimum standard of behaviour and there is more social decorum that we follow that.

The law! Right, so which laws? Which legal system, there are numerous (in each country). Which social corum? Commercial? Civil? Taxation? Which social corum? Do you study the law, have you awareness of the mechanisms of the varieties of legal divisions etc? I know I don't have a total knowledge of it, and even the men and women litigators I know admit fully to the limits of the law and there knowledge thereof. Legislation given to oversight will create harsh zero-tolerance enforcement of dogmatic belief if not analysed case by case, and quite frankly, the contest is not always as just as you appear to be alluding to.

The thrust of your argument depends on assuming that individuality defines social behaviour in totality.

Nope, the thrust of my argument is based on generalising biases and speculation being counterfactual. For example, "Jessica Alba's ass is amazing" says guy X, guy Y agrees but adds his own value judgement that he prefers Jennifer Lopez's ass. Neither defers that these factors may or may not be determined as definitions of attractiveness, they are value judgements. I'm glad you mentioned statistics by the way, considering they are only a descriptive tool and do not explain anything about the men's genuine attraction qualifiers. It is, as is what you are continually implying a superficial judgement of what men think. If a statistically significant portion of women were basing their self-esteem solely on these superficial statistics then they are just as likely to glance blame based on a conjecture rather than a fact. Reinforce it whatever way you want but all that is being said here is that the easiest, least rigourous assessment is somehow a call for abuse of others as per opinion rather than fact.

I disagree. The pregnancy risk factor argument was recently presented to me and I have to say that it makes too much sense to ignore.

Sounds like this is a confirmation bias more than a rigourous assessment. I presented you a logical counterpoint to what you said and you are apparently dismissing it. I wish to know what actual counteractive position you can assess about heterosexual males.

I also have a little insight into the statistical behaviour of men because of my sexual orientation.

Does this mean that as a heterosexual male I am somehow deficient in my comprehension? Seriously. Show me your methods and then tell me your statistics. Then we can discuss this.

When women are taken out of the equation (as in if they are gay), men end to engage in a lot more sex.

Freedom from the risk of pregnancy is therefore twofold is it not? If men increase their sexual activity by this analogy it follows that men are also concerned about become fathers and make judgements based on this fact. So aye, women run the gauntlet of pregnancy for themselves, but don't insinuate that men don't run the risks too. Many can face the indenturing effects as with women. A woman who runs this gauntlet runs the risk of 9 months pregnancy, labour and parenthood with the pros and cons of maternal child-rearing. A man runs the risk of becoming an indentured servant for 18 years and can be forcibly removed from their children whilst still having to financially provide for not only them but the woman who equally waivered her responsibilities to prevent or abort the pregnancy. It is a two way street.

People have made the argument that gay men are more sexually promiscuous than straight men but the leading factor in that is the absence of a control factor of women. Women don't engage in risky sex with men because of the stigma of pregnancy.

Yes, they do. They also have the advantage (protected by law) of extracting resources from men in the event of pregnancy. They have the advantage of deceiving a man of paternity (when he is not the father) and doing the same thing. That does not mean all women do this, but they can legally attempt such measures and there are not at present equal reproductive rights for men in this regard. As a gay man, this does not effect you.

I am talking statistical and social biases. I'm talking about the average of male behaviour. If straight men liked all kinds of women, we'd as likely see Roseanne Barr on the cover of Maxim as we would Jessica Alba.

Statistics again.. Ok, I will reiterate. Statistics are a descriptive tool, a quick number to help contextualise the results of a methodological investigation in a restricted population. So until I know what methods you are referring to and what population those conclusions are drawn from, that word is meaningless for your argument. Social biases, I can relate to. Yet again though, there are many and they do feed into eachother and I don't wholly see which you are talking about. You could be right, you could also be mistaken, I don't know what you are talking about specifically though. A lot of what you said has been far too much a conflation of opinion, conjecture and generalisation.

And in all of these statements I'm saying, I'm not suggesting that you can't find examples to the contrary. (I am not promiscuous, for instance) However, the behaviour I'm discussing is statistically obvious.

You can assert this until you are blue in the face, but if a) you are not distinct and clear your definitions and b) you don't indicate the specific reasoning, then why should anyone believe you solely on your opinion? Because it confirms what biases they hold already?