I totally disagree, there is a massive difference. Look at the goalkeeping for one - a man must be looking at some of the shots from distance that beat a woman keeper and thinking 'bloody hell, our keeper would have chucked his cap on that' and a woman pundit will be saying 'what a strike, the keeper had no chance'. The speed of the play is totally unrelatable. A woman talking about the top end of the mans game, in my opinion, is giving no more insight than me, you or the next man hence the question - why bother ? Just get the best in class to give the most informed view.
Why do you think the championship, L1, L2, NL whenever it's on has the likes of Jobi McAnuff, David Pruton, Don Goodman etc, even Chris Hargreaves for the non-league, doing the punditry ? Why, because that's the level they played at, they can relate to it. You wont get McAnuff as the studio gest for Liverpool v Man City because he'd be out of his depth. Equally, Souness and Keane wont get the gig at Barrow on a Friday night.
In no other walk of life would you choose an inferior option. If you interview someone for a job you don't take second best, you'd take someone with the knowledge or obvious potential to best fit the position. There is no way a woman with 100 caps can give a better insight into the mans game than a male counterpart with 100 caps. The man will have played against the best players of his generation or even to have ever graced the game, he will have played in all the major competitions and in front of millions worldwide.