Just to clarify: sex-based rights aren't exclusive to females, though that' how we think of them because traditionally only female people were denied basic human rights - such as the right to vote - based on their sex.

Historically, however, most rights granted solely to boys & men were granted based entirely on the fact of their male sex, so men's historical rights should count as sex-based rights too. Such as the right to learn to read & write, the right to attend school, the right to learn & practice all the trades & professions, (from masonry to tailoring/clothes making to law, theology and medicine), the right to apply for a panoply of jobs, the right to own property, the right to custody of one's children in the event of divorce, the right to apply for a bank loan or credit card, right to study religious texts such as the Talmud & Hadiths, the right to enter the priesthood, become a rabbi, imam or monk... and so on. If you look at the laws of human civilizations going back through time, you'll find again & again that a plethora of rights were explicitly granted to males solely because they are of the male sex.

Today in countries such as the US, males also have rights to many things that women can't take advantage of because of our different bodies. Such as treatment for prostate cancer & hemophilia, diseases that can only affect males. Or the rights of boys who play school sports to wear or be equipped with uniforms & gear such as helmets, pads & shoes sized and tailored to fit their male bodies, along with jock straps & cups to protect their male genitals, rather than to be forced to squeeze into uniforms & protective gear sized & shaped for female bodies - & to make do with sports bras instead of jockstraps & cups.

Moreover, males have the right to participate in, profit from, & enjoy, a plethora of sports for which there are no female equivalent at all (such as the Olympic decathlon, both Little League & Major League Baseball, and US-style tackle football), or for which there is a now female equivalent but not on the same scale as for males (the NBA vs the WNBA; soccer/football whether at the community, club, professional level) and which do not offer the two sexes the same chance at achieving fame & fortune. For example, in the US, the NFL, MLB & college football don't explicitly bar women, but football remains a male-only preserves anyways because due to the differences in male & female bodies, female athletes can't even come close to qualifying even to try out for these sports. (The sole exception is for the very occasional kicker in football.) But no one says that because women can't participate in these sports that males shouldn't be able to have them.

Also, some rights that members of both sexes were granted historically were sex-based in the sense that they only applied to people who were, or were assumed to be, heterosexual, or in instances involving two persons who appeared to be in a heterosexual relationship. For example, the right to engage in "sexual congress," marry, adopt & utilize medical services such as IVF were once confined only to male-female couples. Gay rights thus are also sex-based rights. And where gay rights now seem to be going off the rails, as it were, is with the push in recent years to disregard sex differences when it comes to human procreation. Some gay men who want biological children are now asserting that it's their human right to make use of women's bodies, & to put women's lives at risk, to do so. Further, some gay men who've obtained babies by exploiting women through coercive womb rental, aka "surrogacy," are now claiming that promoting the breastfeeding of infants through such slogans as "breast is best" & campaigns such as International Breastfeeding Week is bigoted, homophobic & unfairly "exclusionary" because gay men who've become fathers through surrogacy don't have the option of feeding their children in this way.