How
much more value?
Suppose men were providing $10 in additional value over the time they work for you. That's barely even worth a Starbucks gift card, the sort of thing you probably give away to people who guess the number of marbles in a jar at a company mandatory fun event. You definitely shouldn't hire James rather than Deborah because of an average $10 gender difference unless they are literally interchangeable. If their sole distinguishing feature was somehow that Deborah's smile was nicer, or James' laugh was more annoying, that's probably still enough difference to out-weigh this $10 lifetime value. And the reality is your candidates just aren't that similar. Deborah's six years experience in a similar role while James is applying with no relevant background should not lead to the conclusion that all that matters is the average "value once hired" for James will be higher based on gender averages.
Now, suppose women are providing $10M in additional value. Well, I think we'd have noticed something that dramatic by now right? "Gee, my start-up with five women broke even in the first six weeks because of how awesome women are". So we can rule that sort of large figure out as implausible.
I think a discussion about whether it's reasonable needs to take the magnitude of the difference into consideration, which would first mean (if you wanted to do this) finding out for sure how large that difference even is. My guess is, if you did this, you get a very small answer and so then the discussion is really easy: No.
But before you could do that, you'd need to have a decent objective measurement of this "value once hired", and that part is far harder so it won't get done.