Prophet, Priest, and Queen

In my theology class this semester, my instructor briefly brought up the "scandal of particularity", that is, the idea that God, in a human form, had to limit himself to a particular gender, race, time period, etc. In actuality, God is outside and beyond all these limitations. So men, don't be so smug to assume that this choice God made to send the Son as a male somehow elevated the gender for all time. I believe Maria had the best insight in her comments on my last post: sending a woman messiah to deliver the message would have slowed down the entire process of bringing the kingdom. But just so you understand that by choosing a man for the "job", God did not in the least consider women less competent, notice who our role model for being a disciple is and consider who God chose to be the first person to be resurrected, body and soul, into heaven: his mother, Mary. Not Peter, not Paul, not John.

Anyway, this shouldn't deteriorate into an argument on which gender is "better". I asked a legitimate question in my last post. I don't feel I received any responses of a deeply thoughtful, intellectual nature. Let's try again, shall we?

As far as the whole "prophet, priest, and king" deal... I am equally anointed, as is every other Christian, through my baptism. My Church limits my "priestly" participation, but no more so than anyone else who does not choose to be ordained. In this regard, I am as much a priest as all other baptized Catholics, male and female, and have a responsibility to celebrate liturgically and bring this practice to others.

So, I'm still left considering, could Christ have been a woman? Are there "negative repercussions" of that possibility? And why does this question threaten men?