Perhaps I should rephrase my previous comment to reflect some vagueness associated with the subject. While in a sense rights can exist for all things of all circumstances, they effectively do not exist for the those who cannot utilize them. Someone can give up their rights to something can they not?
But more to the point, the example you gave is not an example of a 'natural right'. I am assuming you are using 'fundamental' and 'natural' interchangeably, for the phrase fundamental right is something generally understood in the context of a legal system. And when talking about rights in a legal context, those rights which haven't been granted do not exist, and we are both aware that women were not granted the right to vote until 1920.
Since the right to vote certainly wasn't a legal right until 1920, one can only assume you aren't talking about legal rights, but rather some ideal you hold to be true. The idea that there are certain standards of morality and humanity that all beneficent bodies must observe is something that loosely falls within the realm of "natural rights", ie those rights that have not been bestowed by human law. And the idea that the right to vote exists beyond the realm of human law and government is absurd, as I am sure you are well aware.
If you are of the mind that fundamental rights are those which adhere to a certain well accepted set of values ( as seen in the case of UDHR ), then this is really a discussion on ethics, and therefore any difference of opinion concerning a set of 'fundamental rights' will be arbitrary.
Any system of ethics or rights or whatever the hell you want to call it that does not include 'the right of women to vote' is shit and not worthy of consideration.
Rights are not given, nor bestowed. They cannot be given up or taken away. Any other conceptual system of "rights" is bullshit pandering to those who wish to oppress.
Trivially false. Did women in the 19th century have the fundamental right to vote? Of course. Were the allowed? No.