It's not about their sexual orientation or race, that I've seen. It's about their ideology, their political party affiliation, and such. Which are , IMO, legitimate to criticize any candidate for. Since that is precisely what voters will consider. Elections are ultimately about POLITICS, after all.
A criticism about whether a gay male acts gay enough, or a female candidate acts female enough, are personal and not related to politics. Those are things that I think most voters won't consider, but are things that activist groups go after. Activist groups, while good for certain purposes, have a different agenda than a political party. They are willing to lose, as long as their agenda gains some ground. Political parties want to win; without winning, they can't accomplish their goals for their base (increased minimum wage, protection of jobs, climate and environment protection, wildlife protection, voting rights, gerrymandering protection, etc.).
Just my opinion. But I don't think it's bad to be a white male, anyway. We want the best candidate. In our party, that can be any race or gender. If it turns out to be a white male, so be it. I certainly don't want to vote for a second best candidate based on race or gender or sexual orientation. I want us to win, which means I want the best candidate who can win.
It's like Loni Anderson said in response to criticisms of her bleaching her dark hair and becoming in all respects a "blonde bombshell" to get acting jobs. She said that she realized she could be a great actress, acting to herself alone in a mirror, but without jobs, or she could become a blonde bombshell and work at being a great actress while having acting jobs. (She had been pigeonholed as looking too ethnic for Hollywood at that time.)
= new reply since forum marked as read
