It is common nowadays to speak of "rights" to any number of things: abortion, affordable healthcare, state benefits, etc. We are even told that certain groups (and straight white cis men are not among them) have "rights" to nebulous concepts like "a voice," "respect," "inclusion," or even "love."
Yet this acquisitive and demanding approach to "rights", which implicitly requires a strong central State to fund/enforce these various claims, would have been utterly alien to Classical Liberal thinkers such as John Locke or Thomas Paine, for whom "natural rights" were rights you held against the government, i.e. they limited the State's power, rather than increasing it. "Natural rights" boiled down to: leave me the heck alone.
So, again: What is a right?
Here's one answer:
A right is something you have if the government doesn’t exist. It should be something innate, something which you possess as a human person in isolation, or in a “natural society” with a family, community, etc. If a “right” requires a government to provide/guarantee it, it is not a right. Rights are things you have by default, assuming you’re left alone and nobody interferes with you- especially not the government. Hence, speaking of “rights” to political participation, to be free from discrimination, to healthcare, to welfare, etc. is nonsense. A right is a shield to protect oneself from coercion, not a sword to coerce others.