You're still addressing a different point.

"I have absolutely no desire to live in a state or a country that puts white men in charge of everything while removing the basic human rights of women, children, people of color, Jews, Muslims, and the LGBTQ+ community."

This is a two part statement:

1. "puts white men in charge of everything"

So it's white men in charge of everything, and that they aren't earning it but being given this without regard to merit.

2. "removing the basic human rights of women, children, people of color, Jews, Muslims, and the LGBTQ+ community"

So the basic human rights of some people are being taken, again, without regard to merit - these people are not fully human.

A situation like that is indefensible, no matter who runs it. The fact it is primarily white men means they are the target.

You argue the "men" point, which makes some degree of sense. However, even if you can find some female examples, it's still mostly run by men. Also, these women are supporting a fundamentally misogynistic system, in particular conservative Christianity. At some level, they are doing what they're doing in service of men.

One point of yours I question is, "I'm all for equal rights and representation by all but none of this will happen until we all practice what we preach."

In fact, simple merit would indicate there should be much more equality in both rights and representation. That shouldn't depend on practicing anything that anybody preaches. It sounds like you're suggesting that lack of equality is the fault of the less powerful, or that white men have no obligation to improve the situation until some others live up to some kind of standard.

The dominance of "straight white Christian men" is an artifact of past attitudes. They have no right to their position based on merit. There's no morally sound argument that they should be able to keep it until the less powerful live up to some arbitrary standard or meet some test.