Any multifactorial ranking needs some way of ranking the relative importance of different metrics, and obviously not everyone will agree on these rankings. One

Any multifactorial ranking needs some way of ranking the relative importance of different metrics, and obviously not everyone will agree on these rankings. One reasonable approach would be to weight factors by the prevalence of individuals who would be affected by it, ergo, something that harms women (50% of the population) would be of greater importance in the ranking than something that harms transgender people to a similar degree. I don't entirely agree with this wholly utilitarian approach, but if we're just talking about stupid and pointless rankings, as opposed to judicial philosophy, I don't know, seems fine for a general audience and people who aren't a general audience should seek publications and rankings that are more targeting towards their specific circumstances. For instance, I don't have kids. If I read a list about 10 awesome things to do at Disney world I wouldn't grumble that it's all about family activities and wonder why there isn't more in there for singles. I'd look elsewhere than the inflight magazine for what single people should do at Disneyworld.