>What is the point of a right that applies to 1/3 of the population.
Tell that to the abortion rights campaigners. Or the father's rights activists. Or the people who advocate for the rights of gay/trans people, indigenous peoples and immigrants.
There are so many rights out there that only apply to a small subset of the population. It doesn't mean they're invalid.
Every one of your examples conveys a right to 100% of people who are biologically capable of having that right.
That makes sense, women can have rights that don't make sense for men.
The right to WFH is a right that only applies to a socially defined group, specifically the group that have the best jobs. Not at all in the same category IMO.
Ok then, what about these rights:
- Right to sick leave and annual leave (only for people on part/full-time contracts, at least in AU)
- Right to strike (only affects unionised labourers)
Tell that to the abortion rights campaigners. Or the father's rights activists. Or the people who advocate for the rights of gay/trans people, indigenous peoples and immigrants.
There are so many rights out there that only apply to a small subset of the population. It doesn't mean they're invalid.