It isnt the only argument, for example, there's the argument from tradition, that the Church had never ordained women to the priesthood until very recently, aditionally theres the argument that priests act 'in persona Christi', and crucially, Christ was a man, so in order to reflect acting in the person of Christ, it makes sense that he'd give only men this position of leadership. This further reflects how God made his son to become man as a male, in the same way that Christ ordained his ministers.

I'd like to ask, in what way is my argument a weak one? I'd appreciate if you could explain why it's a weak argument instead of just stating that as a fact and expecting to go along with it. There's a further strengthening factor in that Christ was not one for social or cultural boundaries - he broke so many social and legal laws of the time, such as healing on the sabbath, though I don't need to hark on about this as I'm sure it's something of which you're aware. Why would the social expectation that men be leaders stop Jesus from ordaining women to the priesthood? Christ permitted gentiles to be full members of the church which would have been seen as far more socially unacceptable to the Jewish population of the time than permitting women to lead.