logic?

I have been reading about the decision in England to finally begin ordering appropriate women as bishops. Several of the articles explain why "traditionalists" object as, "Jesus had no female apostles." Leaving aside the minor detail that we do not know why this was so, it occurs to me that this is one very flimsy basis for objecting.

Consider, Jesus had no gentile apostles, no English apostles, no Polish apostles, no German apostles and (this is important!) no Italian apostles. So the entire lines of popes and archbishops of Canterbury is invalid if the church can only order Jewish men. Which, now that we think of it, would rid us of some real nut jobs both in Anglican and Roman succession. Maybe we should re-consider the idea?

FWIW
jimB