Don't Ignore the Trolls. Feed Them Until They Explode.

Women are a significant population in the uk. It has been shown that this population suffer some harms only because of their being women. This is wrong.

A core part of this disagreement/discussion is that there is no accepted formula for determining moral weight.

It's certainly fine to have a discussion at more of a core philosophical level but I think that your arguments would more accepted by the HN audience if you would provide more context about what level of depth you are choosing to discuss instead of calling the article "ridiculous" and providing a single data point about one of the many thoughts posed by the article.

Most people responding are considering the current state of the world and what incremental actions they would take to improve it, not philosophical questions like "what is a harm?", "which harms are worst?", "should we eliminate harms?", "is it right to eliminate harms from one group over another?"

There are many tough questions that need to be answered before you can even discuss selecting or not selecting groups of people and considering their moral weight. Without posing or answering questions like "what is a harm?", "what harms are not permissible?", and "should we eliminate harms?", it's impossible to know whether or not we will be at a philosophical impasse when asking "should one group get additional weight for societal protection from harms over others?".

Later, the concept was also used by some fascist states, especially Mussolini's Italy. In this sense, it was used in a more negative light.

As such, corporatism is not necessarily a fascist concept but I can see how you could make that connection.

There wasn't any indication from my side that I wish to maintain a coalition of powerful subgroups. However, I'd be naive to argue that any large scale society has existed without a number of subgroups who either share power within the accepted system, or take power from outside its constraints. This is because society is made up of people who have all sorts of positives and negatives but have also adapted to form groups (families, tribes, states, nations).

The thought was initially posed due to the limited time and effort that any human being has. If you want to go through the list of groups that experience the most harm and reduce that harm and move onto the next group, you need some way to choose which group to start with. Devotion to that group or perceived ability to change their fate are simple ways to select which cause (not necessarily group) to align yourself with.

In no way does that require you to align yourself with only one cause or group or exclude yourself from the same. For example: being devoted to your family doesn't make you not devoted to your country, it simply adds additional complexity to the rules and scope of your devotion to both groups.