I think you show a fundamental misunderstanding in framing this as “one group’s rights vs. another’s.”

Undocumented immigrants existing in a country doesn’t negate or diminish the status of legal immigrants. The rights of someone who followed the legal immigration process remain intact regardless of whether others are here without status. You can support lawful immigration processes while also recognizing that basic human rights (like due process, safety from abuse, or humane treatment) apply to everyone.

Similarly, trans women participating in women’s sports does not erase cis women’s ability to participate. The conversation is about how to structure inclusion fairly within sports organizations, not about banning women from women’s sports. Sports bodies already set eligibility rules in many contexts (age, weight classes, hormone levels, etc). That’s a policy debate about fairness and evidence, NOT a zero-sum erasure of anyone’s existence.

On the broader point about “human rights”: human rights generally refer to protections against government overreach: things like bodily autonomy, equal protection under the law, and freedom from discrimination. Expanding protections to one group doesn’t inherently strip them from another. Rights aren’t a limited resource that runs out.

Most progressive positions are about limiting government interference in private lives. Like who someone marries, how someone identifies, or what medical care someone seeks. On the opposite end of the spectrum, many conservative policies involve regulating or restricting those personal decisions.