As a non-Anglican, I ask why the consecration of women as bishops is an issue if the ordination of women as priests is not. Is it not just a question of degree once you have ordained women as priests?
The ordination of women as priests is also an ongoing issue in the world-wide Anglican Communion. It is not universally accepted -- and few Anglicans outside the wwAC accept same.
I am not about to defend those who favor the one and oppose the other, because I am not one of them.
(I do commend you for your grasp of the appropriate terminology, however!)
I'm not Anglican either, but I read one commentator that made a good point.
There's a debate on whether the sacraments can even be administered validly by a woman priest. But even so, that only affects the parishioners who are directly in her care.
Make a woman a bishop, and suddenly she is responsible for ordaining new bishops and priests. If her sacraments are invalid, then all the women *and men* she "ordains" are invalid. All the other bishops she helps to consecrate (and I assume this woman as Primate will do just that) are invalid as well. And, likewise, the bishops and priest they ordain are also invalid.
Basically, having a woman priest only affects one congregation. Folks can just go to another parish if they don't believe in the validity of her sacraments. But having women bishops is like swinging a chainsaw right through the heart of Anglican orders. An Anglican who firmly holds to the invalidity of female priests, would have this mess where he would have to scrupulously investigate the lineage of bishops to make sure that there was no woman in the line. (We see something very like this situation in schismatic Catholic groups, and believe me, it is not pretty).