I found the anonymity-inducing paragraph interesting for a number of reasons. The submitter asserts that she's not like most girls, but then goes on to list a bunch of things, half of which, in my experience, most girls, including most self-described feminists, would also say about themselves. She likes looking pretty, and getting better at sex -- shocking! Within the bedroom, I also suspect a plurality of women are at least somewhat submissive.

Regarding "get in the kitchen!" -- submitter seems to be making an implicit connotative jump, because she likes cooking, to take it as if the sentence were simply equivalent to "Go do your favorite thing!" But that's not the connotation that is usually there. The people saying something like that usually mean it more like "Go do this thing whether or not you like doing it all, because it's too low status for males to bother themselves with it." That may not be the intended connotation of everyone who says it, but it doesn't take that many bad apples in the barrel to get people pattern-matching, so this is what more feminism-inclined people hear when they hear "Get in the kitchen," and that's why they get offended.

Regarding wolf-whistles and such, it seems like in an ideal world, we'd invent a new obvious signal, like a red bracelet or something, that explicitly showed that a woman enjoyed this sort attention. Right now, there's a bad pooling equilibrium where some women dress sexy because they want that kind of attention, and some women want to dress sexy without getting that kind of attention, and there's no way to tell them apart. At the moment, it doesn't seem like my suggestion would work in the real world, because clearly the submitter is concerned about the other kind of female being able to identify her, or there would be no need for the anonymity here. (If, despite everything she just said about herself, the anonymity is about keeping her identity from men, then either she has an as-yet unidentified alief, or I'm really confused.)

As a male who prefers to dominate in the bedroom but sincerely wants an equal partner outside of it, I think that the submitter is, despite a valiant attempt at self-awareness, overgeneralizing from personal experience in assuming that most people desire to have social relations in public mirror their bedroom preferences. Actually, given that I have some sadistic tendencies, I'd be very strongly opposed to society trying to structure social relations around what arouses me personally, even as part of an aggregation of preferences.

Also, I'm mildly curious about

And the same testosterone that makes me good at a male-dominated subject, makes sure I'm really easily turned on.

I realize that there are fields in which men seem to perform better. But I had thought this was usually attributed to differences in brain architecture, not hormones. Unless the submitter is a professional athlete, I'm curious what field she benefits in by having more of a hormone that provides additional strength and aggressiveness.