If God is to be understood as a Trinity, that trinity must be of equality and mutuality, which I don't see in a Father/Son relationship, in which one begets and the other is begotten, albeit eternally - it seems to be a one-way relationship, not mutual.
Possibly that non-mutuality is present in Wisdom language too, but for me it is less so. Mutuality and equality are for me better represented / expressed in the language of Creator / Wisdom / Spirit than of Father / Son / Spirit.
Also, with the latter, the Spirit relationship is quite different to that in a trinity of Creator / Wisdom / Spirit. I think the mutuality should be represented as equal / same sort of mutual relationships between all three persons, and I prefer to think that the first person is not God alone, or the primary mover of the three. 'Father' implies this.
I was encouraged to remember that the language we use for God is metaphor, but Father/Son eliminates the feminine from the metaphorical language, which is I think dangerous, unfair and untrue. It is a less complete metaphor or image when the feminine is thus excluded. We'll never have language to express fully who God is, but for me, Father / Son / Spirit is less whole than our imagery for God could be - we can do better. We can better express the mutuality, the masculine and feminine present in the Divine than we have to date with the very masculine, non-mutual language of Father / Son / Spirit. And we should continue to strive to do better with our language, our metaphors, our images for the Holy One.