Universal human rights are inalienable.

Distinction is always going to be less effective than universally agreed declaration. We can declare: all human beings have equal rights.

Pandora's box is the universality aspect, which must be manifest by those agreeing to declare the nature of ones rights in respect to others rights, both for oneself and for others. This is the reason a distinction-based legal position is poor policy.

We cannot distinguish between a man and a woman if we are agreeing to the universality of their equal human rights.

The we part is the difficult part, apropos pandora's boxes. But ultimately, universality is very empowering to the individual.

▲

maerF0x0 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

If a man and a woman are both drunk and have sex, the man is declared the rapist. (This is said as an example of where the laws, as applied, are not gender neutral)

	▲	MomsAVoxell an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Yeah, not all states actualize human rights, whether they are party to the declaration or not, as well as others. I don't need to focus on any particular state - I've seen many of them - and understand that there are definitely shifting loads in the worlds cultural fabric.
	▲	michaelmrose an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[dead]

▲

cowlevel 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Getting precisely 50% of the assets of a marriage that dissolves isn't a universal human right though.

	▲	MomsAVoxell 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Well, asset management could also be held as a responsibility of the marriage in the first place, and that can only be done by way of expressing ones rights with another, properly. That this expression has become the root of an industry of exploitation (divorce proceedings are a big circus) is clear. Rights are not a constant. They have to be expressed. Like in vows, maybe.