The appropriation of the uniquely symbolic potentialities of what we are being forced today to call "heterosexual" marriage was very deliberate on God's part

"For Thomas, so far as the dignity of the human nature is concerned, the Word could have assumed the [(une)] body of a woman, for the Incarnation and the divine power are [both] indifferent by relation to the sex to be assumed:  'Ipse [Deus] potuit assumere quale corpus voluit'; it is for reasons of convenience (ad congruentiam) with the mission of Christ to be Head of the Church, to teach, to direct, [and] to defend humankind, that he assumed the [(une)] masculine sex. . . .  This position is far from being unanimous in the 13th century.  For Bonaventure, for example, the[se] reasons of convenience become reasons to affirm the impossibility of an assumption of the body of a woman by the Word. . . .  [And it is] the same for Thomas' teacher Albert the Great."

     Adriano Oliva, O.P., "Essence et finalité du marriage selon Thomas d'Aquin pour un soin pastoral renouvelé," Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques 98, no. 4 (2014):  614n41 (601-668), translation mine.  Texts cited:  .
     According to Oliva, one should never adopt uncritically—which is to say without examining the works of St. Thomas in all of their sophisticated particularity—the contemporary prejudice that he insisted upon "the inferiority of women" (614).