You sincerely don’t believe that being a woman was a disadvantage from the perspective of electability for either candidate? You have so much faith in the American voting public that they have no bias whatsoever against women versus men when it comes to electing a president?
Yes, I understand that you think women would be just as good at being president. I agree. Stating the obvious that we both agree on is not giving you some sort of moral edge over me, though you clearly believe it does. But I’m not talking about our personal beliefs of the capability of women, I’m talking about the realities of the American voting public, and the realities of the outcomes of whether minorities benefit from giving a greater chance for fascism to win in order have representation. This is what I mean when I say you’re not even engaging with my argument.
I think, given the way that you have straw manned my arguments, that you believe that acknowledging the reality that other people are shitty about it somehow taints you with the stink of misogyny. You believe it’s some sort of moral failing on my part that I acknowledge that being a woman works against electability for a presidential candidate because somehow that acknowledgement must come from the same sort of bigotry that actually reduces the electability of a woman. It’s ironically exactly the sort of attitude I was describing in my original post. Where you choose what you perceive to be moral superiority over the actual benefit or harm of the groups and ideas whose causes you champion.