It’s well known that this year’s election has been more “competitive” than most, to put it nicely. The 2016 election has been a head-to-head battle between a Republican candidate looking to redeem “the good old days” and a Democratic candidate pushing for equality and a “fair economy.”

Now, these are their proclaimed policies, but based off the recent debates it seems more obvious that Trump’s policy is to call out Clinton’s email scandal and Clinton’s policy is to point out Trump’s sexist and racist comments. Don’t we want to hear what they really plan to do with our country once they’re in office?

Now don’t get me wrong, Clinton has brought forward and explained her policies much more explicitly in the debates than Trump, but it often gets overshadowed by the banter back-and-forth between the two.

Not to mention that the vast differences in policy between the candidates have driven a wedge right down the middle of the country. The newest release in political propaganda comes from hardcore Donald Trump supporters who believe that if women were stripped of their right to vote, Trump would win by a landslide. A trend on twitter has surfaced with the hashtag “#RepealThe19th,” referring to the 19th Amendment that granted women in the U.S. the right to vote. A few female Trump supporters have even stated that they’d give up their right to vote in order to see the toupee-wearing, smug-faced looking business man in the White House.

These claims may not come directly from the campaign, but news of this trend is spreading. Citizens across the country have retaliated against these claims. If the vote was reduced to just women voters, Hillary Clinton would be on her way to the White House in less than a day. According to the FiveThirtyEight polls-only forecast, if women were the only voters, Clinton would receive 458 electoral votes, and Trump only 80.

While if the vote was solely male, Clinton would receive only 188 electoral votes and Trump would receive 350. So, has our electorate system come down to a battle of the sexes? Is the 2016 election divided by gender rather than political views? It shouldn’t be.

A women in presidential office would be a welcomed step forward for gender equality. However, if women really want to be equal to men, shouldn’t a woman get elected for her policies, not just the fact that she’s a woman? This seems like it should be the case, but the number of times Clinton has said “as a woman” or “as the First female president” is too many to count. What is Hillary Clinton bringing to the table—in her policy, not her gender—that other candidates aren’t? That is the question that should be answered.