If your social media feed is anything like mine, you're seeing a lot less selfies and a lot more commentary about the this week's presidential debate.
Because this year marks the first time that a major party's candidate is a woman, the post-debate conversations have also changed - beyond the normal fact-checking and debates on the issues, this year includes posts on everything from "manterrupting" to misogyny to gender bias.
While the upside of these gender-focused topics is a broader dialogue about the disparities in how women in leadership are treated and viewed, the downside is that the dialogue is focused on those disparities.
Here's the thing - I have yet to meet a woman in leadership who hasn't faced gender bias. I also have yet to meet a woman who would rather be recognized for surviving gender bias instead of being recognized for her abilities and achievements.
As a female founder of a tech company, I have certainly experienced my own share of gender bias. My experiences even inspired me to speak up about those biases and how the culture of tech might be inhibiting women from wanting to participate and to cofound an organization to help other women entrepreneurs become effective leaders and CEO's.
But as important as it has been to me to work for more inclusion, not just for women but others who face inherent or overt bias because of socio-economic status, race or other factors, I see that role as separate from my leadership role within our company.
It would be disappointing to have the dialogue focus on my capacity to withstand the litany of derogatory comments like "Yes SIR" or that I've been asked why the wife was leading our company.
Yes, those things happened. And yes, the undermining was frustrating, because it made it more difficult to slog through the bias and resistance just to get to equal footing. They also made me tougher and more able to compartmentalize the personal digs from the professional demands of my role.
But those things do no define me, my skills or contributions to our team.
As a startup founder and CEO, my hope is that I, personally, will be valued or judged on whether I was able to fill that role adequately and whether I contributed to the growth and success of our team and that our company will be judged and valued on our contributions to our industry - not because we may have a woman CEO.
I want others to admire our company for the powerful technology our team has invented and for the fact that it has won awards and recognition for changing the possibilities for how cities use mobile to connect with citizens.
I want others to talk about the fact that in just two hours over 40 government agencies were able to build an app on our platform when only one of them had previously built an app or learned how to code.
If my leadership is to be valued for anything, I want it to be for the relationships we've built with others and because of our mission to support and collaborate with others and for our efforts to empower more people to have a direct role in creating the kinds of technology that removes barriers to easily accessing services or information.
I want others to judge me on whether I've served my team well and whether I've advocated for our startup to the best of my abilities. And I realize that the answer to that is fluid and that previous success is not a promise of continued success - that I must work for it every day.
While I understand that women in leadership have a responsibility to be role models and advocates for others if we are to gain greater inclusion - I also know that one of the best ways to spur greater inclusion is to keep the conversation about the skills and performance instead of that conversation first being about about those skills and contributions "as a woman".
So, in the wake of this first national debate, I will continue to celebrate that yet another barrier for women has been removed now that a woman candidate is representing one of our nation's major political parties in the contest for our highest political office.
But I will also celebrate the day when that conversation isn't about whether a woman has the stamina to do the same job that has been held by men since its inception but about which of the two candidates vying for the same position, without consideration of gender or race or other factors, has the best qualifications and whether they have earned the confidence of the people they want to represent.