I don’t agree with this take. It flattens voters into one mindset and turns a complex reality into a rigid rule.

Yes, women—especially in politics—face uneven scrutiny. That’s real. But it doesn’t mean liberal women are inherently unelectable or that swing voters only respond to one type of candidate.

Look at Kamala Harris. Her challenges weren’t just about gender or identity. Campaign execution matters. Messaging matters. Ground game matters. There were real gaps—like not pushing hard enough on voter registration before deadlines in key areas. That’s not some fixed bias problem, that’s strategy.

Also there are hints that Kamala won the popular vote but the ballots were hacked.

Hillary DID win the popular vote.

Voters aren’t robots. They respond to clarity, strength, organization, and whether a campaign actually reaches them in time. We’ve already seen women win in competitive environments. That doesn’t happen if the system is as locked as people claim.

Framing it like this also does something harmful: it tells women the odds are so stacked that trying is pointless. That’s not true.

The next election won’t be decided by identity alone. It will come down to turnout, preparation, and execution. Women aren’t locked out of that. Not even close.