As Jordan Peterson has pointed out, there is generally more variability between members within a group than between groups.
That said, women are different from men ON AVERAGE in certain characteristics like agreeableness, they express aggression covertly as opposed to overtly ON AVERAGE and in general are going to be more community oriented.
However, one might see, for example, going to war, as an EXPRESSION of community if they see the scope of 'community' as not 'the global village'
So it really really really depends.
Women are certainly capable of just as much corruption, though may get a pass because societies are likely to take more time to see them as corrupt.
So to even answer the question ... you'd have to agree at the outset that we are talking about a guaranteed non-corrupt though of course imperfect character.
Men tend to occupy the ends of the bell curves when it comes to intelligence and aggression. Yet both of those things can be deployed for good or for bad.
It's hard to imagine anyone other than a Trump, with strong masculine-ness, kicking the dems' asses they way Trump has. Could a woman have done this? From my experience, I doubt it, but can a woman kick serious ass? Surely ... more often less overtly.
The right woman for the right time will come along (Also maybe the wrong one will).
My sense is that for most rational conservatives, just as with blacks, nobody really cares. Show me the times, show the man or woman ... and because there is more variability within groups than between ... ... ... you make the decision then and there.
Before I know Condi Rice's true politics ... that is, having nothing to do with her being female or black -> when I thought she was conservative (which it turned out she isn't) ... I would have had no problem voting for her. I THINK that's mostly true for most conservatives.
In general though I am sympathetic to the argument that women never should have been given the vote NOT because 'they are too weak or too stupid' or some bigotty argument ... but because too much feminine energy leads to too much community orientation leads to too much socialism. I would allow women the vote but first I would go back in time and put in even more clarity about the limits of government.
Out of concern for community and security ... I believe the en masse, women voting leads to more pressure against freedom and individualism, which would be fine had the Constitution been prepared for it.
THAT SAID, weak charactered men, long before women got the vote, were certainly doing their best to eat away at the Constitution ... so anyone who argues that women are destroying the country with too much collectivism are not looking hard enough at men.
Anyway that's more than you asked for. Speaking for myself, I'd vote for whoever I predicted was most likely to strengthen freedom and destroy collectivism. If that's a 23 armed black muslim tranny ... well ... IF that would result in stronger liberty and weaker collectivism ... then if later in the campaign cycle I even found out it was a leper penguin from the moon, then I could look past all that.
We conservatives, I THINK, look at the president as more of a servant, janitor, employee who must be able to lead, but isn't primarily 'my leader.' In that sense, I'll hire whoever will simply git 'er done, just as I would hire a construction contractor or software engineer.
There's nothing virtuous in that by the way, I'm not 'pro woman' ... it's incidental that I'd vote for a woman if the woman happened to be the one I predicted would get it done.
Finally, if Trump revealed to us that all this time he was actually born a woman, I'd say fine, don't care, so long as you don't push any agenda other than more liberty and less government.
Good post