All living and sentient beings deserve the same human rights regardless of who or what they are. This is because human rights are in our context those rights which are inherently human and moral. Skin colour, race, gender, preferences, appearances, actions and beliefs do not change the nature of living things and therefore do not change whether those things deserve human rights.
There are some exceptions such as woman having different physiology than man and thus different needs in certain regards, but most rights are not affected by this.
There is no evidence that shows that all women or men are worse or better than the other. Such differences are generally only relevant to individual people, so a man might be less intelligent than a woman, but that is not something that can be generalised to an entire gender. When people make such generalisations they are judging 3.5 billion people based on perhaps 100 or 1000 examples they know of, which constitutes .000028% of the population. Therefore it is almost impossible for anyone to know nearly enough people to make a generalisation that has any statistical correlation. Anyone who thinks they are capable of making such a conclusion based on their skill, intelligence, or instinct is overconfident.
People might similarly try to judge an entire group of people characterised by an arbitrary feature such as gender by using biology or statistics. Very few biological factors can be used to predict anything that isn’t itself biological such as diseases and other medical or psychological issues. One cannot reliably predict other matters such as what job they will have, because that is up to the choices the person will make. Statistical generalisations also fail when it comes to personal choice since people have the freedom to choose for themselves. Even if there is no free will, the human mind and reality are too chaotic to reliably predict with our current technology.
Not all men play video games and not all women love shopping for clothes. Trying to predict what people like, want, mean, or will do is done at one’s own risk of being completely wrong, and people should be prepared for the possibility of failure when they rely on such predictions.
The only time rights should be changed is when an attribute of that thing has a direct moral impact, such as allowing a criminal who has not been reformed to go free. This might endanger others, so for the criminal and everyone else’s sake imprisonment and rehabilitation are a better temporary option. This requires certain infringements on the criminal’s human rights such as their right to freely travel. Another example is not allowing children to do things that they do not understand the consequences off, as it is for their and others’ good. Such infringements are often hard to justify, which is why we have written laws to make it clear.
It is difficult to write laws that cover every aspect and possibility of what should be illegal, so there will be loop holes and wrongful punishments. This is why following the letter of the law as opposed to the spirit of the law is dangerous. It is also dangerous to follow the spirit of the law because that is harder to clearly define and can be interpreted in different ways.
This is why people should not be selfish or irrational, so that laws can be modified and interpreted as needed for the best of everyone.
Human rights are universal because I believe there is a universal objective morality which is independent of skin colour, gender, and sexual preference. The fact that something is sentient, can feel and act and the mere fact that it is alive means that it deserves these rights. If it does not have these rights then it will have problems which is inherently immoral.
There is no inherent problem with skin colour, gender, or any other attribute people have. These are generally meaningless, especially when it comes to human rights.
All living or sentient beings morally require equal human rights.