Human Rights Organizations Should NEVER Tell Women and Girls to "Move"

The year is 2026. So-called leaders, writers, the academic class, news media, medical groups, and organizations are calling women's rights group

The year is 2026. So-called leaders, writers, the academic class, news media, medical groups, and organizations are calling women’s rights groups, shelters, and activists “anti-rights” for asserting women’s rights? For asserting women’s rights to safety, protection, and well-being.

Do you know who does that? Let me tell you from both personal and professional experience. Predators. Abusers. and, yes…colonizers. (I know people hate that word more than they hate the barbaric treatment of human beings.)

Some of these people like to believe that they would not have called Druella Jones, Celia (the enslaved woman), Mary Turner, Billie Holiday, Lena Baker, Rosa Ingram, Fannie Lou Hamer, or Joan Little “hateful” or “anti-rights.” But their actions, choices, how they use their power and who they use it against…. are telling a different tale.

Human rights should never look at women and girls and say, “Move.”

It should never ask those who fought for safety, dignity, and recognition to disappear so others can be seen.

Women’s rights are not a barrier to human rights. Women are human beings. Protecting women and girls IS the work of human rights. Women and girls have spent generations naming harms that were ignored, building protections that did not exist, and creating spaces where their experiences could finally be heard. Those victories were not gifts. They were built through courage, sacrifice, and often tremendous personal cost.

A just movement does not honor one group’s humanity by requiring another group to surrender theirs.

The answer to expanding rights is not to push women and girls to the margins again. The answer is to build a world where dignity is wide enough to hold everyone.

Because human rights, at their best, do not say to the vulnerable: “Make room by making yourself smaller.”

The deeper historical lesson is that women’s rights movements exist because women were repeatedly told—explicitly and implicitly—to move. Move out of leadership. Move out of politics. Move out of decision-making. Move out of ownership. Move out of access to opportunities. Move out of spaces of authority. Move away from naming what happened to them. Move away from the expectation of fairness and justice. Move away from the money. Move away from everything they killed your people and kin for….and then created and took “souvenirs.”

So any human rights framework worthy of the name has to be careful that it does not recreate the very pattern it claims to oppose: asking the people who fought hardest for recognition to become invisible once the conversation expands.

Women and girls are not obstacles standing in the way of progress. They are important people whose lives, voices, and safety must remain part of the conversation.

The difficulty is not always the complexity of the issue itself—because often it is NOT that hard. Sometimes the difficulty comes from a lack of willingness to hold multiple truths at once.

A mature human rights framework should be capable of saying:

Women and girls have specific rights and protections because sex-based realities have shaped their lives for centuries. (And we still have not made this world safe for women and girls.)
People of all backgrounds deserve dignity, safety, and freedom from violence and discrimination.
Expanding compassion for one group should not require denying the humanity or lived realities of another.

Those principles are not inherently incompatible.

Throughout history, societies have often acted as though justice is a limited resource—as if recognizing one group’s needs requires taking something away from another. We do not protect one person by making another person invisible.

The harder work is not “balancing rights” as though women’s rights and human rights are separate categories. Women are human beings. Women’s rights are human rights. The work is making sure that specific vulnerabilities are not erased in broad language.

For example:

A commitment to safety should include asking:

Are survivors of sexual violence able to speak openly about their experiences?
Are girls’ developmental needs being considered?
Are women’s health needs, including reproductive realities, understood?
Are policies designed with the people most affected in mind?

A commitment to dignity should include asking:

Are people treated with respect?
Are vulnerable people protected from harassment and violence?
Are we avoiding cruelty and dehumanization?

The challenge comes when organizations or movements begin treating honest questions as betrayal, or when protecting one group is framed as requiring another group to stop naming their own experiences.

That is where trust breaks down.

Many women throughout history have learned a painful lesson: rights that depend on women being quiet about their own realities are not full rights. The women who fought for voting rights, workplace protections, protection from domestic violence, and recognition of sexual harassment did so by naming their experiences clearly.

The principle is simple:

A just society does not ask vulnerable people to disappear in order to prove they have compassion.

The question is not whether we can care about more than one group.

The question is whether we are willing to practice the kind of justice that does not require anyone—especially women and girls—to become unseen.

A movement does not become more compassionate by asking the vulnerable to become invisible. True justice makes more room without removing the people who were already standing there.

A movement may begin with a moral truth:
“This group of people deserves dignity and protection.”

Then, as the movement grows, it faces a harder question:
“Can we expand justice without losing sight of the specific people who first carried the burden of fighting for it?”

That is where wisdom, empathy, compassion, and love are required.

Because history also teaches us something else: when vulnerable people raise concerns, institutions sometimes dismiss them—not because their concerns are always correct in every detail, but because organizations can become invested in protecting their own narratives, reputations, or alliances.

The moral responsibility is to listen carefully.

A society can hold compassion for multiple groups while still asking hard questions about policy, safety, language, and consequences. The goal should not be a hierarchy of suffering. The goal should be a justice framework that does not require one vulnerable group to become invisible for another group to be recognized.

The question history keeps putting before us is:

When we expand the circle of human dignity, do we truly make the circle larger—or do we quietly ask someone else to stand outside it?

That question becomes especially important for women because women’s oppression has historically been tied to sex-based realities: pregnancy, reproductive capacity, sexual violence, exploitation, gender-based discrimination, and the historical exclusion of women from public life.

Many women argue that if those realities are not named clearly, then the people most vulnerable to sex-based harm—especially girls, survivors of violence, and marginalized women—can become invisible in the very movements that were created to protect them.

A healthy human rights movement should be able to hold difficult truths at the same time:

Women and girls have unique vulnerabilities that deserve protection.
Survivors of violence deserve to have their experiences taken seriously.
Marginalized people deserve dignity and safety.
No person should be dehumanized or targeted.
Good intentions do not remove the need for careful thinking about policies, language, and real-world consequences.

The deeper concern many women raise is not simply about terminology. It is about whether women are still allowed to name their own experiences.

Can a woman talk about pregnancy, sexual violence, female poverty, exploitation, or female-only safety needs without being dismissed? Even if she uses the word “woman” and “uterus” and doesn’t refer to herself like a breeding animal. Can she do that?

Can girls’ needs remain visible? I mean, without explanations trying to convince people who don’t want to give her her rights that she deserves them.

Can survivors speak about what happened to them without being accused of harming others?

Those are legitimate questions and life-saving questions.

The measure of any justice movement is not how loudly it $peaks about dignity, but whether women and girls are still seen, heard, protected, and honored within it.”

Do not ask women and girls to surrender the spaces they built through courage, sacrifice, and survival. Honor the hands that opened the door before you walked through it.

Historically, women’s rights were often won because women insisted on naming what was happening to them. They named domestic violence. They named rape. They named sexual harassment. They named marital rape. They named economic discrimination. They named the ways female bodies and labor were exploited.

Hell, enslaved women all over the world named what was happening, took their cases to courts they likely knew they would lose in, and also strategically fought like hell. “You wanna put me through hell? Let’s see what lies beneath it.“

Some of these people like us to believe that they would not have called Druella Jones, Celia (the enslaved woman), Mary Turner, Billie Holiday, Lena Baker, Rosa Ingram, Fannie Lou Hamer, or Joan Little “hateful” or “anti-rights.” But their actions, choices, how they use their power and who they use it against…. are telling a different tale.

I have a very hard time believing that you are building a world where what happened to Sakia Gunn and Shani Baraka, and her partner, Rayshon Holmes the daughter and partner of Amiri Baraka, is unacceptable, discouraged, and punished. Too many of those at the top get uncomfortable when women assert any right, and especially her right to say, “I am a lesbian, and I love women.” Sure, today they would publicly perform grievances while sliding and blending in their own campaign somewhere in the middle of it. BUT are they building a world where women can choose who they love? State that they are women and that they love women. I mean without interference. No violence. No harm. No traditional male violence against women shenanigans.

I do not know. Because what I do know is that some people at the top of our societies—organizations, leaders, the academic class, medical groups, and news media—have been actively moving against the progress and safety of women and girls for close to two decades now. I say that as a veteran advocate for the safety of women and children. It is as clear as day.

Don’t tell me that you are for women’s choice if you believe that society gets to keep holding the short leash on what those choices are.

Movements lose their moral center when protecting people becomes a competition over who is allowed to speak.

The answer cannot be to abandon compassion. It also cannot be to ask women and girls to disappear inside broader conversations about humanity.

A truly just movement has room for both dignity and discernment.

The question worth asking of any organization is:

Who is being protected? Who is being overlooked? Whose experiences are being centered? And are we building a world where the most vulnerable people—including women and girls—are safer, freer, and more fully recognized as human?

Because human rights, at their best, are not about making some people invisible so others can be seen.

They are about refusing to let anyone’s humanity become negotiable.

Human rights should never require women to silence their experiences in order to prove they care about others. Authentic compassion does not demand self-erasure.

Human rights should never say to women and girls: Move. (How dare you?)
Justice does not grow by making the vulnerable smaller.

**It is one thing when these organizations put women’s advocates on lists, blocked us on social media, and blocked our opportunities. BUT when they demonize the very places that women seek refuge, possibly delaying women from getting the help they need in a season of crisis, that’s an entirely different story. That’s infuriating beyond belief.

Why Title IX Matters for Black and Brown Girls (And Who is Undermining It) – Rosa’s Children

Girls Deserve the Same Clean Reasoning: 15 Things We Already Understand About Eligibility – Rosa’s Children

Druella Jones (Aunt Jonas), Alabama, 1915: The Woman Who Lit A Fire Freedom Remembers – WE Survive Abuse

Joan Little: First Woman Acquitted of Murder for Defense Against Sexual Assault – WE Survive Abuse

Maleness Is Portable Power: 20 Reasons Women Are Still Asked to Move Over – WE Survive Abuse

Her Name Is Mary Turner. Her Story Still Speaks. – WE Survive Abuse

The Resistance of Celia: The Enslaved Black Girl Who Fought Back – WE Survive Abuse

🧨 Selective Empathy: Who Gets Compassion—and Who Gets Condemned – WE Survive Abuse

They’d Say You Asked For It: The Cost of a Woman’s Truth in a World That Loves a Lie – WE Survive Abuse

Grief That Echoes: Honoring the Women Amiri Baraka Lost to Violence – WE Survive Abuse

Woman You Are Already Enough: A Reminder from Fannie Lou Hamer – WE Survive Abuse

Why Women’s Rights Vary by State—and Men’s Don’t: A Breakdown of Legal Inequality in America – WE Survive Abuse