Of course, she's a Church of England cleric and therefore not really a priest in the eyes of those whose claim to Holy Orders is unimpeachable. But she turned an interview with Clarissa Dickson into an annoying distraction. (And yes, doctor, I do take responsibility for that negative focus as a part of my character and choices.)
She doesn't even have her ankles covered.
Women can wear secular masculinized clothing and although they are thought eccentric or mannish or cheeky,
it is clear that this is a fashion statement, one that only functions by keeping its incongruity alive.
But men cannot wear women's clothing without being held in disdain. If women can wear the distinctive clothing of a male priesthood, doesn't that de-sex the vesture...and the men along with it? After all, the masculinity of clerics in the modern West is not exactly unquestioned anyway.
Consciously or not, feminists' ultimate aim is the destruction of masculinity. Even in the Marines.
Feminism necessarily means the pseudo-masculinization of women and the actual feminization of men. A masculinized woman is a mutant; a feminized man is a shame.