“I've written before that a community of humans could be viewed as a living organism.”

It could also be viewed as a beehive, a battery, or a bicycle. But it isn’t any of these things.

But I get it, it’s an analogy. So athletes could be thought of as the muscles of this “organism”, and rock stars as the larynx, and so on, right?

The problem with using models as analogies of human society is that unless they are accurate representations of relevant phenomena, they lead to wrong conclusions. It’s like the neo-classical economists with their models of perfect this and perfect that. Perfection is not of this world, so it’s not much use modeling human society on something that doesn’t exist, is it?

By the same token, your model is inaccurate and untrue. A human community is not “a living organism”, it’s an association of organisms of one species. The difference is that an organism has 100 percent of its genes in common with itself. But you have fewer genes in common with your own offspring than with yourself, and they have more or fewer in various degrees with other kin and strangers. There is a conflict of interest between the members of a community that there is not as between a living organism and itself.

It’s true that humans more than any other creature have been able to harmonise this conflict by means of social co-operation based on the division of labour and voluntary exchanges, and thus have been able to greatly expand the welfare possibilities for all. But the conflict of interest is real and legitimate, and is not to be conjured away by pretending it doesn’t exist. It is to be harmonized by social co-operation, not by prisons.

“How do you reason that leaving women to solely support and nurture future generations is going to suffice?”

Suffice for what?

I’m not reasoning for women’s sole support for children; only that relations must be based on consent.

Since patriarchal obligations are anathema for women, why shouldn’t they be for men?

I notice the author hasn't come back to answer the many questions put to her.
It comes as no surprise to see that when academics, particularly Humanities academics, step outside the Academe and their lofty ideals meet the real world they crumble. They're rarely made accountable in the Academe because they just have to submit their articles to a journal that is already subservient to the ideals they subscribe to.
The real test comes when they submit them to the public arena.

Aristocrat, Peter Hume et al.:
What extraordinary presumption you have to suggest that I have 'gone quiet' in the face of your ludicrous abuse. As a matter of fact, I am in the middle of marking. When that is done, perhaps I might be able to read your abuse carefully and come up with a few points worth addressing. But other deadlines call. In fact, I only reply now because a friend alerted me to your peculiar claims about me, and suggested I should add this note.
Helen

Good. You could start by explaining why, according to your logic, sexual preference should not be illegal, as constituting "the harm of discrimination".

[Deleted for abuse.]

[Deleted for abuse.]