Thread by @SVPhillimore

Many people seem to have this problem. Let's give one example - the Kimberly Nixon case. Whose rights should prevail? the male bodied person who wished to be a rape counsellor? Or the female bodied victims who said no?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimberly_…

https://twitter.com/jonlis1/status/1503074528859242503

Amazingly, the women won that case. Their rights to dignity prevailed against the rights of a male bodied person to be validated. Whether you agree with the outcome or not, there is no doubt that this is a prime example of how asserting one right diminishes another.

Let me give you another example. I don't have the right to sit anywhere I like on a plane because I am physically disabled. I would risk impeding the exit of others if I sat by the emergency exits.

Or every single case under the Children Act 1989, where the rights of parent, child and state must be measured and weighed and not every party can prevail.

I could go on and on and on and on but what's the point? A refusal to accept that human rights were created by the need to balance tensions between competing desires seems to me very much a product of privilege. you can't see that tension, because you have never faced it.

Everything you want, you have. Or you take. What's the problem! And then parade your ignorance and arrogance as if it is a badge of honour. Women's right to single sex spaces is the key example of rights in tension. Agree or don't with their rights, but you cannot deny it.