Does descriptive representation of women and ethnic minorities legitimize anti-immigrant claims in the name of women’s rights? Recent evidence suggests that femonationalist communication is not only on the rise in Western democracies, but also that the invocation of gender equality for nativist claims leads citizens to selectively adapt their preferences. At the same time, there is growing evidence that parties who employ femonationalism have so-called ‘token’ politicians amongst their ranks that descriptively represent women and ethnic minority groups. What remains underexplored is to what extend such social categories play into the effect of femonationalist speech. Does learning about politicians’ social categories affect citizens’ proclivity to adapt their preferences? This paper explores this question by conducting an original visual vignette experiment with 3 000 U.K. citizens, varying both the gender (male, female) and the ethnicity (British-white/ Middle eastern) of communicating politician. The message, claiming that immigration imposes a threat to gender equality and women’s safety in the U.K., is constant across all treatments. It is expected that femonationalist speech by women politicians and by Muslim (Middle eastern) politicians, yield stronger effects on support for a) progressive gender policies and b) assimilationist integration policies than by a male, white politician. These effects are conditional on citizens’ general immigration attitudes.