This is a tough one.  Our value of leadership is skewed.  Consider this:
Rabbi, of all of us - who would be the greatest in Heaven?
Women and men will do well to be humbled and give glory to God.  As not all of us should wish to be teachers or leaders.

I didn't vote because I didn't see my choice there:  There were probably women leaders in the early church.

Well, be that as it may, leadership has long been denied to women on ontological grounds in our faith tradition.  It is easy for us to say as men to women that leadership is not to be desired by everyone.
The real issue here are those women who feel as though they are called and gifted for leadership and we men deny them that because of a lack of genetalia.  Ultimately that is what is at stake here.  I think that when you consider the nature of our sources (occasional) and the frequency of women as influencal leaders, patrons, etc, then the case breaks down against current female leaders in the church, especially among us primativists (those streams of christian thought that want to recreate the values and practices of the earliest Church)

The questions are kind of stacked in favor of the egalatarian.  

Also, women have not been denied on ontological grounds per se (by serious theologians anyway.  There is and always will be the nuts out there.)  The mere existence of certain genitalia (to use your words) is not sufficient for leadership in the Church according to many of the best and most honest theologians who have some say concerning the roles that God has designed for men and women. (I would say it is not even necessary. Consider eunichs.)  Being sympathetic to your opposition is very important in debate.
Finally, primativism is based on an inherent fallacy.  Mere temporal closeness to the life/death/resurrection of Jesus is not sufficient for correctness in doctrine.  The Word of God was given for that very reason, to stand against the test of time and "override temporalness" (to use Barth's language).  Thus, our reasoning is just as valid (if not more so if you consider our use of hermeneutics) than that of 1st-2nd century AD.

Travis,
How so?  How are they stacked?  I would love to see alternative answer given.  I thought I hit the major categories: in place/accepted, in place/not accepted, not in place/not accepted, not in place/accepted.  What am I missing?  Is the quibble with the language and the position I am taking?  If so, then I am unapologetic because I am most certainly trying to make a point.  I think the evidence shows that there were and that a good exegesis of the texts shows that Jesus and Paul were in favor of it.  That is my position and I write from that perspective. I have been the other side for roughly 10-15 years, I most certainly am sympathetic, I just disagree. I get what they are saying, I just think it is wrong and that this wrongness significantly has hurt the church, its mission, and perhaps most importantly, real lives of real women throughout history.

Yes they have be denied on ontological grounds.  Why are they disqualified?  Because of the nature of their being.  That is the very essence of an ontological basis for disqualification.  Their femaleness is what disqualifies them.  As a person who sees no difference ontologically (in terms of ability and essence) between men and women, genitalia is the only real difference.
I am not arguing for primativism, but a lot of primativists (and there are a lot of groups out there that like primativism) argue from a lack of women in leadership/influence positions in the early church.
I don't know if I completely agree with your disavowal of primativism or restorationist ideals.  Who is talking about suffiecient anything?  It certainly does follow that the form of Christianity closest to the time of Jesus and Paul is more likely to resemble the structures that Paul and Jesus aproved of than forms that were more encultureated as we move geographically, culturally, and temporally away from that which we consider standard bearers.  It is simple historical principles at work here.  Why else do you think we are concerned with the gospels being written as close to Jesus' death as possible?  Or that we want to find the earliest manuscripts that we can.  It alone is not proof, but it is a significant element in this analysis.

Honzo beat me to it. I would just add that just b/c modern complementarians don't explicitly justify their stance on ontological grounds doesn't mean the majority of them throughout history haven't. In fact, many contemporary BC's acknowledge that their stance has shifted away from the long held and espoused ontological argument. (See 4 views on Women in Ministry - Belleview, Blomberg, Schriener, and Keener).

As a woman, I am extremely reluctant to comment on this issue.  It is such a huge  and often sensitive issue for me.  Honzo - I really appreciate that you mentioned the women who are called and gifted for leadership but are denied the opportunity.  I have been one of those women in the past.  I think it is really  odd that I have been continually selected for leadership roles in the business/secular world but not in the church.  After working an entry-level position for 7 months I was asked to apply for a management position.  I was promoted four times in four years and then given a title with one of the best employers in my city.  I was the president of my high school class, but not considered to be president of my youth group.  Countless times I have been affirmed in leadership roles outside the church, but have come to never expect the same in a Christian setting.  I am not even considered because of my gender.
I know that I have not addressed any of the specific issues other people are bringing up, but I thought it was important for a group of men discussing this issue to hear from a woman's perspective.
As I prepare to hit the "submit comment" button, I am reluctant.  While these things may not be said to me, I fear that in the minds of those who read this comment, they will dismiss me as a woman who has only tried to promote herself.  For example, see the first comment.  While I can understand the perspective, that is a convenient argument and prohibits change - even change that would further the Kingdom of God.

For those who give detailed and nuanced apologetics for the idea that the role of men and women in the church are uniquely different (complimentarianism is one such form), I would think none would say that they base their apologetic on the ontological being of men and women (none who understand the word anyway).  To say that the property of womenness is sufficient for the denial of leadership (which needs to be defined by the way.  Are we talking about deacons? Teachers? Pastors? Overseers? Etc.  Different people will give different answers.  Some will hold that women can have some leadership, but that men will hold the highest places of leadership. Again, don't forget the nuances.) would not say much at all.  It isn't circular reasoning, but it is close.
I think the real question here is more teleological than ontological.  Our metaphysics here is more practical than abstract.  What are God's plans to use men and women differently?  How has God ordered these plans?  Is it clear in His Word?  Are we afraid to look beyond our egalatarian or misogynistic world views to discover this telos/goal of God?  Of course, understanding that the important questions are more teological than ontological will not allow for so easy of a dismissal of the views of the non-egalatarian/complementarian.

Travis - I think what you are saying is that we need to understand what God's plan/purpose is for each gender.   It seems like the answer you are coming to is that God has a purpose for women and a purpose for men and those do not overlap - at least not when it comes to leadership roles.  I don't want to put words in your mouth, but that is what I gather from your comment.  Please correct me if I am wrong.
If that is your position, why would a God who is just give women gifting in leadership?  It is undeniable that a large percentage of women are incredibly gifted in this area.   Is the purpose of a woman merely to support men?  Or are we together to embrace the great commission and lead - together our world to know and love Him?