"The major problem, one of the major problems, for there are several, with governing people is that of who you get to do it. Or, rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them. To summarize: it is a well known and much lamented fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made president should on no account be allowed to do the job."
If we must have leaders, then, the corollary to Adams' Law must follow: presidents should be drafted.
I don't think Clinton's or Harris' problems were their genitalia. I think it was that they both were fundamentally bland and uninspiring candidates running bland and uninspiring campaigns against a guy who got his base whipped into a frenzy every time he stepped on stage. They are both immeasurably better-qualified and more well-suited for the office, but Clinton ran on an "it's business as usual, which means that it's my turn" platform, and Harris ran on a "let's get back to business as usual, I'm better than the other guy" platform; and by the time they course-corrected, they had both run out of time.
Harris even had a taste of that base-engaging fervor in the early days of Walz's selection, when he was going on attack and calling Republicans "weird," but then her consultants pulled the leash and he brought it back to business as usual.
Would AOC succeed where Clinton or Harris failed? I doubt it. She's been the subject of a GOP smear campaign for six years now. But it won't be just because she's a woman. There's still a lot of misogyny in the American electorate, of course, but I think it'd honestly account for something like 3-5%. Enough to make a difference in a close race, but not enough to truly sink a good, compelling candidate.