When talking about wanting more people from identities that have been/are currently underrepresented in public office to run or assume public roles, some version of “AS LONG AS THEY ARE QUALIFIED/WE WANT QUALIFIED PEOPLE” is usually an immediate response.

When concerns about qualifications are only stated this loudly and consistently in relation to underrepresented groups, the implication is that these folks aren’t qualified (or are more likely to be unqualified, I suppose).

After all, if this was an equal concern for all, we’d see it applied to white men—there are so many of them, so by the numbers isn’t there a risk of some duds among all those dudes?!

But no, we only hear this concern so loudly, clearly, and frequently in relation to discussions of seeing more folks who are women, BIPoC, LGBTQIA2S+, disabled, etc. run in elections or assume public roles.

And given that, it’s insidious to try to claim it’s a neutral statement that isn’t reflecting and reifying misogyny, racism, colonialism, ableism, etc.

Like, imagine if every time men candidates came up, I said “as long as they aren’t cannibals.” You’d eventually ask “...are you concerned that the men running are cannibals?” and I respond “What?! No, I’m just saying, candidates shouldn’t be cannibals.” I‘d be messing with you!

(In addition to messing with you, I’d also, you know, be spreading the idea that men are cannibals.)