"Treating Both as Neuters"?

I'm not saying anything here about the "imaging Christ" rationale for the male-only priesthood.  But it seems to me that there is a fallacy in C.S. Lewis's argument (quoted by Bill Castle in Rob's post) that

[t]o say that men and women are equally eligible for a certain profession is to say that for the purposes of that profession their sex is irrelevant. We are, within that context, treating both as neuters.

But surely this doesn't follow.  In supporting the equal eligibility of men and women for any profession, one could be saying (in whole or in part) that women and men as different sexes would each bring distinctive contributions, perspectives, and natural or experience-based qualities.  Far from "neutering" persons of the two sexes, this argument affirms the differences in qualities but adds that both sets of qualities are valuable for the position in question.  It's my sense that many of those who want to see women priests think that women would offer distinctive qualities that would bring important aspects of the priesthood to the fore that tend not to be brought out with an all-male cohort.  To put it in terms of recent legal theory, Lewis's criticism addresses only "sameness feminism," not "difference feminism."

Again, it can still be that some particular difference between men and women -- e.g. that Christ was male -- is dispositive for the question; that's a separate dispute.  I just don't think that Lewis's "neutering" argument works.

Tom