Is it bad for sentencing jurisprudence that women are still badly under-represented on the bench?

The question in the title of this post is prompted by the report in this post at The BLT, which details the following statistics (that I find quite depressing):

Women currently make up 22% of all federal judges, a new study has found, and 26% of state-level judges.

The study by the University at Albany-SUNY's Center for Women in Government and Civil Society found that only two states — New Jersey and Connecticut — had achieved a "critical mass" of 33% women among the state's federal judgeships.  As for state judges, eight states have hit the one-third women mark, but 13 are below 20%.

The 33% threshold is “important because it is the point where women become a critical mass and where their number is large enough to induce change in the normative conception of leadership,” said center director Dina Refki in a statement.

Women’s share of the federal bench is at 10% or less in eight states — and nearly non-existent in Montana and New Hampshire.

In this post a few months ago, I asked "Do women make better sentencing judges?," and this new study certainly justifies continued discussion of that question.  But, as the title of this post is meant to explore, I would also like to hear thought from readers about whether they think having more women on appeals courts might impact sentencing jurisprudence for the better.