Sure, in terms of public perception, it will be good to have a woman's genome sequenced. And in terms of science, there could be some major uses (e.g., if phenotypes such as health status are made available along with the genome one could try to use the genome to dissect female specific health issues). But as far as I can tell, this whole story is about perception with no reality involved.
The problem is that
“If anyone could properly consider the ramifications of knowing his or her sequence, it is a clinical geneticist,” says professor Gert-Jan B van Ommen, leader of the LUMC team and director of the ‘Center for Medical Systems Biology’ (CMSB), a center of the Netherlands Genomics Initiative.I do not even know what to say to this. What exactly makes a clinical geneticist better able to think about these issues than say, a genetic counselor, or a ethicist or a priest, or a bioinformatician?
Anyway, they also say
Following in-depth analysis, the sequence will be made public, except incidental privacy-sensitive findingsAnd for this, Lieden University is becoming the recipient of my second "Genomics By Press Release Award." (see my first one here, where interestingly, the discussion of sequencing a woman's genome came up when I announced I was going to sequence a genome on my new Excercycler machine).