E.g. "I don't care that she's a woman, but she just doesn't look presidential."
"I just don't trust her, she's too shrill." "I just don't trust her, she's too quiet."
Look at all the media attention to her hair, her outfits, her skin, etc and you see that she's treated fundamentally differently than a male candidate.
The presidency has been held by a male exclusively for so long that voters don't know what a female president looks like. When so many (shockingly many) people vote on gut, instinct, or just their emotion, taking the time to acknowledge bias is a useful step.
Strange comment to make considering the constant articles and social media posts about Trump's hair, Trump's orange skin, and Trump's little hands, plus the widespread coverage of the naked Trump painting and naked Trump statue that were created to mock his weight and body parts.
Case in point: The whole 'small hands' thing would've blown over if Trump had ignored it, but he couldn't help himself:
I am not gonna lie, Trump's hair got much more coverage. She is not treated fundamentally different than a male candidate, except in a positive bias as in "I want to see a woman leading the country!" It is obvious that Hillary leverages gender-based tribalism to get the female vote (and the gentleman's).
The argument that people are unconsciously biased is precisely such an emotionally manipulative argument to give Hillary a gender-based advantage. That does not work with people who are hardened against emotional manipulation though, like myself.
And it's valid to consider the externalities when you're making a political choice. The goal is a better future, after all, not maximizing fairness in the short-term.
Still, it's a relatively minor factor with the way the current race has turned out. So we don't need to worry about those arguments.
That's why you shouldn't judge by gender, but by performance of the candidate. That just proves my point. If your goal is a better future and you make performance-based decisions, you will minimize biases like sexism all by itself because what is less discriminating than assessing raw performance?
Not only that - affirmative action is disrespectful. Women can do as well as men. I believe in it. But that is precisely why affirmative action is obsolete. Only those who think women cannot handle the work and cannot perform on par with men favour affirmative actions based on gender. In the German language, there's already a word for women who were promoted into positions they cannot handle because there are certain quotas to fill as required by law. This is called "Quotenfrau" and is incredibly derogatory.
There are flaws in affirmative action, but doing nothing about disparities that have self-perpetuating attributes is a pretty bad plan by itself. Top candidates don't appear out of a vacuum.
Imagine yourself as a sport team leader. You've normally picked large bruiser types and you say "Hmmm, I should try a lighter person with better speed." You don't know it'll work out, and it's "unfair" to the big bruisers, but it's a rational thing for a team leader to do.
Considering that left-handed players often get a benefit from simply being unique, choosing a female president could pay out now even if in the long run there's no real difference.
Forget racism or sexism, that's how I choose software, which movie to go see, or which pair of pants to buy.
This I find the worst argument for her presidency imaginable. "I am so virtuous and anti-sexist that I prefer the female candidate for being female" It's pure sexism. You stop being sexist when you leave the gender out of the equation. Completely.