I think the level of legitimacy given to these theories by conservatives and Trump himself are unique and do suggest something sets Clinton apart on these matters, whether Trump overtly states it’s her gender or not. When Obama’s 2008 campaign made an ad suggesting John McCain was too old to be President — by citing a rumor McCain didn’t know how to send an email — they were roundly criticized and disregarded. Trump is openly saying Clinton’s physical state disqualifies her and it’s now a matter of debate.

So let’s say he were trying to say the same thing about Bernie Sanders. In fact, let’s look at his criticism of Rubio as “Little Marco” or Jeb Bush as “low energy.” These were inherently attempts to emasculate his opponents. Indeed, they culminated in Trump making lewd suggestions about the size of his member on a debate stage. Trump prides himself — both in public and, anecdotally, in private — on his masculinity and tears down his male opponents by arguing his manhood is (ahem) larger than theirs.

How, then, should we read his statement that Clinton “lacks the mental and physical stamina” to fight ISIS? As I said in my post, Trump acts as if he and al-Baghdadi are going to meet in the Octagon. Trump acts as if physical strength is a benefit to the presidency (a notion my post attempts to disprove).

This is an inherently gendered line of attack and made all the more so by Trump’s historic love and use of it. It’s a viewpoint that ties strength to masculinity and weakness to femininity. Considering he’s running against a woman, it’s difficult to see it as anything but sexist.