The conservative argument is that Jesus and his Apostles were male, and so priests should be male.

Aside from the excellent points already made in support of a more feminine clericy, and maybe one day the Curia, there is one you have overlooked: Jesus’ mother, the ‘virgin’ Mary. She was chosen, and not her husband, and directly visited by an angel, underlining (I believe) her innate holiness. She also purportedly (spontaneously) authored the Magnificat, which, near as no never mind, serves as Jesus’ mission statement. The only other contemporary person who had a direct visit from an angel was Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist, who was a priest at the temple. Despite being considered blames and worthy, he had to undergo an extensive period of fasting and cleansing in order to be worthy of traveling into the inner sanctum where the angel Gabriel appeared to him: it was only under those conditions in which he was worthy enough to see the angel directly whereas Mary was just straight up worthy.

Joseph, the husband of Mary, had an angelic vision in a dream, which was necessary to give him permission to ignore the law so that he not ‘put her away quietly.’ This suggests a clear distinction between he and her.

To the extent that your argument suggests a flaw it is just the relationship between homosexuality and equality between the sexes that will need to be dealt with prior to recognizing women as every bit the equal of men in every respect. I tend to think that the repression of homosexuality has a great deal to do with the sex abuse scandal. Note, I do not think that homosexuality is the cause of the scandal, quite the opposite: the repression of homosexuality led many conflicted and closeted men to enter the priesthood in the hopes of being ‘saved.’ It turns out exactly the opposite happened: repression is like that, whatever it is that is being repressed will come back, sideways and virulent and corrupt.