Maybe it’s just my frenetic Facebook feed, but a specific argument keeps popping up when it comes to Hillary Clinton. In the words of one commenter, “millions of people are going to vote for her because she’s a woman.” In another case, a (woman) friend posted a proud #ImWithHer status. One of her (male) friends replied: “Because she’s female or because of her track record?”

This should be implicit, but to say that women are only voting for Hillary because she’s a woman is not only sexist but has no basis in fact. My friend and Clinton supporter said it best in her response: “I would never vote for a candidate simply because she is female.” And, for that matter, neither would the vast majority of American women.

For one, there is no historical precedent of women supporting any and all women who run for office. Clinton is the first formidable female presidential contender, winning more primary votes (almost 18 million in 2008) than any woman in history. But in the 96 years since American women were granted the right to vote, more than a dozen other women have launched presidential campaigns with limited success. (Most people, women included, likely don’t know the names of the most successful among them: Green Party candidate Jill Stein in 2012, or Democrat Shirley Chisholm in 1972; neither cracked 500,00 votes.) Womanhood alone wasn’t enough for first-ever female vice presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro; she and her running mate, Walter Mondale, lost in a landslide to Ronald Reagan in 1984. Most recently, women failed to rally around Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina or push the John McCain–Sarah Palin ticket to the White House. The best evidence against the argument that women are only voting for Hillary because she’s a woman may be Hillary herself: After all, she was a woman in the 2008 presidential primary race, too.