There is a long-standing tradition in the church to use honorific titles identifying priesthood positions
for men at just about every level beginning when they become missionaries. Elder, Bishop, President.

Women — even those who hold similarly named positions — are generally referred to as simply “sister.”
I can recall less than a handful of times when a woman was referred to by title.

When temple presidents are called, the wife is called the “matron.”
I suppose that’s a title (although I’ve never heard anyone in such a position addressed as “Matron Thompson”),
but really it just means “sober, middle-aged, married woman.” Which is kind of like giving a guy the title of “geezer.”

In the past, whenever I’ve asked someone about this disparity, the answer I get is generally one of these:

Why do you want a title?
Titles don’t matter.
But if titles really don’t matter, then why do we use them?

Shouldn't the focus be on the church body, and not on lofty titles and such?

I have been consecrated in Apostolic Succession, but find that many place un-neccesary weight on the title,
and focus less on what the responsibility is to the overall church body is.

I am no more nor less responsible to the church body with or without the title.

Take the title, and a buck fifty, and you can get a small cup of coffee. The title doesn't define who I am in Christ.

At the beginning, middle and end of the day, I am still Joe, called by God,
to do the work He has placed before me, to grow His Kingdom.

All the other stuff is fluff, in comparison to being the individual, seeking first the Kingdom of God.