The most basic prerequisite to deserving human rights is for the subject to demonstrate that it has sufficient overlap with a human being in some metric or ability to warrant it respectful safety and benefits. It is obvious to anyone but the most cranially deformed individuals that women do not have any of these attributes.
Physically speaking, women have 50% lower muscoloskeletal performance, 10% reduced cranial capacity, and are widely found to have as much as 20 average IQ points less than averages. Any physician would tell you that deviations in these would be sufficient to be diagnosed as having a degenerative disease, microcephaly and debilitating learning disabilities. These aren't even physical variations like appearance and height, they are functional metrics of human ability. Can something with such distinct morphology still be considered human?
But one could argue that women's contributions to humanity entitle them to some moral compensation. And yet it has been proven time and again that women are a net deficit to society. Taxation amount is an indicator of income, and thereby contribution in useful production to society, has shown that in every stage of life, men pay up to twice as much taxes than women. Furthermore, women abuse the state for personal gain, and have been found to be a negative fiscal impact on society throughout they're entire existence. In summary, women contribute nothing to society, and even actively drain and destroy human resources. How can one justify giving an active hindrance and detriment to society so many privileges, when many sentient creatures and machines that offer so much more have no such benefit?
You might make the ethical argument, that like the disabled and leeches of society, they still feel pain and can suffer. But is there any evidence of this? Sure a woman may cry, or shiver, or communicate suffering, but is she really suffering, or just making gestures and reactions in response to negative stimuli? There is zero empirical evidence, that when a woman is beaten or raped, that any of her responses demonstrate a true suffering, instead of a mere noxious response. There is zero empirical evidence that women can even consciously perceive the world. Furthermore, how are we to know she is not merely imitating male emotion for a situational advantage? I could build a machine that cries when it's beaten or raped, and makes similar responses and comments, but can the machine truly feel and perceive those feelings? Is the machine anymore human than a woman?
There is literally no argument for the continued rights of women. Nothing. And none of you can make a case against that.