Sorry, it seems really obvious to me and I have heard it said before, so didn't feel I needed to spell it out: Female authors must be better than most to have any shot at getting published. So, women authors who do get published tend to be better authors than most male authors.
You aren't required to care. Whether or not you care is on you, but if you want quality writing, there is evidence that due to the fact that women are discriminated against, IF they manage to get published, their writing will be of unusually high quality.
And of course a writer's identity will play a role in the work that they produce. No one is writing Toni Morrison besides Toni Morrison, and a Fanon essay is a Fanon essay because he experienced being black in France and Algeria.
Why stop at choosing books by gender? If it's irrelevant to the subject matter being written on, should I buy books based on someone's nationality? Their religion? Their race? Their sexual orientation?
Citing examples of authors where the subject matter is relevant to their identity is not a counter-argument to the point I'm making. I'm in agreement that only Toni Morrison can write about Toni Morrison's identity-related experiences and only Fanon can write about Fanon's identity-related experiences. However, if Fanon and Toni were to both write a book on something like the 2008 banking crisis, I would expect the their lived identity-related experiences to be largely irrelevant to the final product each produces.
This reduction of individuals to their identity is dehumanizing.
No one is reducing individuals to their race or gender identity, but unless we're talking about pure science and mathematics books it is a show of ignorance to argue that lived experience has no bearing on the work of the author.
The relevant lived experience is being a banker at Bear Stearns, not the race of that banker. Also, how do I know the person of color isn't also a banker at Bear Sterns. I worked in Wall Street years ago, and yes, I had co-workers that were people of color.