I'm interested to hear from our Brothers in Masculine Order, if there is any philosophical explanation for their landmark which prohibits them to visit our Lodges.
There are several aspects to this.
First, the Landmarks do not derive from philosophical choices, or at least not choices to which we have any access. Rather, they are inherited from ancient times (by which I mean the foundation of organised freemasonry) as the distinguishing characteristics of the Order, those factors which together define freemasonry as being freemasonry rather being some other sort of Order. How or why the Landmarks are as they are (rather than something different) is lost in the fog of history, and indeed it is one of their essential features that they are effectively time immemorial. Guessing the original reasons is a matter for speculation, and that speculation may be a legitimate and interesting exercise but is incapable of reaching a definitive conclusion. The Landmarks are simply what they are, ancient traditions which define freemasonry, and they are immutable because freemasons are specifically sworn to support, maintain and uphold them.
Secondly, it has always proved impossible to achieve comprehensive agreement on all of the necessary and sufficient criteria, and indeed it is likely that most GLs (unlike various individual writers) deliberately avoid trying to set out any comprehensive codification of Landmarks, in order to retain some flexibility and case-by-case discretion in various unforeseen situations which come up from time to time. This is a position analogous to the "common law" principle in civil jurisprudence, allowing common sense to be used instead of trying to anticipate every circumstance which might potentially occur. Nevertheless, although there isn't an agreed list of all the "sufficient" criteria (which would completely define what is freemasonry), some of the "necessary" criteria (which rule out what isn't freemasonry) are transparently clear from our history and universally agreed among all freemasons.
Thirdly, one of the universally-agreed Landmarks is that freemasonry is men-only. Therefore it is obviously impossible for an organisation which admits women to be freemasonry, even if it might in other respects be superficially similar. Freemasons all have a sworn Obligation not to engage in masonic communication (meaning exchange of the masonic secrets, and so forth) with anyone but other freemasons. Therefore we can never attend any supposedly-masonic meeting of persons who are not freemasons, obviously including (although not limited to) any Lodge of any organisation which admits women. However (for the avoidance of doubt), there is no objection to purely social events, since those are not masonic meetings.