I voted for Hillary Clinton.

On March 1 of this year, I cast my first ballot in a presidential election. As a woman interested in and excited by politics, voting for Hillary Clinton held immense significance. To play my part, however small, in possibly electing the first female president of the U.S., filled me with excitement. I voted for Hillary Clinton because I believe she is the most qualified candidate. I voted for her because I agree with many of her policy positions. I voted for her because I believe she will enact positive changes in this country.

I also voted for her because she is a woman.

A few weeks after I cast my ballot for the woman who might be the first female president, I attended a roundtable discussion on gender and politics held at my college. During this event, a professor expressed the opinion that voting for Hillary Clinton, in part or in whole, because of her gender is regressive and unintellectual. He made it clear that he believes this country's attitude ought to have already progressed beyond the point where we consider gender when choosing which candidates deserve our votes.

His opinion is not unique; throughout this election cycle, many “progressive” bloggers, writers and voters expressed similar beliefs, claiming that taking gender into account when casting a ballot somehow invalidates the credibility of the voter. I, personally, encountered “progressives” who attempted to discount, trivialize and/or shame my belief that Hillary Clinton’s gender is fundamentally important to her candidacy. These individuals argued that votes ought to be based on issues, not on gender.

I find these statements infuriatingly regressive.

The fact that no woman has ever occupied the Oval Office is an issue. The fact that nearly 80 percent of elected offices across this country are currently held by men is an issue. The fact that the U.S. barred women from participating in the political process for more than half of this country’s existence is an issue. Rebecca Traister worded it well in an interview with NPR when she asked, “Since when is it progressively OK that a country that's 51 percent female has only been governed by men?... Why is it OK to not care about that?”

My ability to say “I voted for her” is significant. In a country where only 24.5 percent of lawmakers at the state level are women, it is important that I, a woman, am able to vote for a woman. Female legislators comprise fewer than 20 percent of my country’s Congress. That means that my vote, a woman's vote, for a female politician is of consequence. Until the day arrives when women hold a number of offices directly proportional to their presence in the population, when saying “I voted for her” is no more revolutionary than saying “I voted for him,” then the gender of candidates matters.

If Hillary Clinton was not the first woman with a legitimate chance of winning the White House, then her gender would not matter as much. If the pages of this country’s history were full of references to “Ms. President,” then her gender likely would not matter much at all.

But she is the first, and because of that, disregarding the importance of Hillary Clinton’s gender is fundamentally sexist and ideologically regressive. The lack of diverse representation in this country is a salient issue. A woman with the qualifications and experience necessary to bear the burdens of the office is running for president. This momentous occurrence, a potentially pivotal moment in the fight for diversification of representation, demands our attention.

Note: The scope of this article is limited to the significance of Hillary Clinton’s campaign only as it directly relates to the lack of female representation in the United States government. To my personal knowledge, Hillary Clinton and all other women holding office in the United States are cisgender women. Electing transgender, nonbinary trans, intersex, and gender nonconforming individuals to political office is critically important to ensure that our government is truly representative of this country.