I'm trying again with a point I raised from before, and hopefully this time I'll express myself in a more legible way.

So in the general present, I'm actively arguing with someone who takes a full QT position. She asserted, as QT sometimes does, that the GC position is "bio-essentialist" - that by setting standards for women based on biology, GC will inevitably exclude someone (infertile women, women who've had hysterectomies) that they actually want to include. On this occasion, I had the foresight to reply with what I think is the best answer: "we use the same qualifications for 'women' as QT does for 'ciswoman.'" But no, was the response - the trans-affirming definition of "ciswoman" is "anyone who was raised as a girl."

That's where we left it, but it got my wheels turning. I believe that saying "raised as a girl" is a disingenuous red herring. In fact, I think I can prove it - I think I can prove that when pressed, QT would have to admit that "raised as a girl" means nothing more or nothing less than "brought up with an awareness of female biology," which just punts it back to a question of biology.

So let's roll in the thought experiment:

Imagine some newborn babies. All of them are female; all of them have perfectly formed uteruses, fallopian tubes, ovaries, vaginas, vulvas, and clitorises. By the magic of time travel, we know that in the future, all four of them will get pregnant, deliver a baby vaginally, and breastfeed at least once. In addition, all of them get thorough age-appropriate sex education throughout their lives, including knowledge of their own bodies and the bodies of others - nothing is concealed from them.

As adults, all of these people declare, affirmatively, that their gender is women. (That's why we're referring to them throughout as "she.")

However, these babies are not siblings. They each have different parents, and each one will have a different upbringing.

The first baby is brought up in a "free to be you and me" family. The baby's parents insist that "girl" or "boy" is nothing more than a question of the body, and that all children should dip freely into "boy-coded" things and "girl-coded" things as strikes their fancy. They place no restriction whatsoever on what we'd call "gender expression." In fact, if she starts to dip too far towards one side, the parents compensate from the other side to make sure she doesn't get "locked in."

The second baby is brought up as a proper "theybie," which is similar to the first child but a step further - the parents never even use the terms "boy," "girl," "man," or "woman" except in respect to gender identity, which they refuse to assign to the child until the child actively asserts it - and even then, they regularly check in to see whether the child is still asserting it. As much as possible, the parents are trying to steer the child towards a nonbinary mode of expression, actively compensating if she gets too close to one side or the other.

The third baby will be brought up as a "tomboy." This baby's parents believe that the female gender role is a trap imposed by society to control women, and as such, they only give the baby things that have been coded as "boy," because boys are brought up to be rulers and leaders and they want this baby to grow up the same way. They bring up the baby to be aware of patriarchy and of the necessity, as a female human, of being wise to its tricks and opposing it on every front. They place restrictions on gender expression by saying that "pink things" are a bad thing, and ward their child away from them.

The fourth baby is brought up to adhere to norms that don't quite align with either gender - since both binary genders are artifacts of a patriarchal system, the child is brought up to be intellectual and aloof, with neither the assertiveness of boys or the sensitivity of girls. All toys are educational toys, all clothing follows a careful unisex line, and most objects are green or yellow. The parents place restrictions on gender expression by adhering to a new set of motifs and symbols that don't align with either binary gender, or that align with a third gender.

Imagine a fifth baby. While this baby is physically identical to the others, this one did -not- receive any thorough sex education. Instead, this child's parents actively misinformed her; she was told that her father, and not her mother, had the same kind of body as hers, and that any other boys or men she met had the same kind of body as hers. As such, this child was brought up with the belief "I am male" but was misinformed as to what that meant.

Imagine a sixth baby. While this baby is physically identical to the others, she received no sex education whatsoever. The questions of men and women, of where babies come from, were simply never discussed under any circumstances. When she started menstruating, it was framed as an experience unique to her and her own special health challenges. In terms of treatment, this baby was otherwise brought up as a "theybie," the same way as the second.

Imagine a seventh baby. While this baby is physically identical to the others, her parents were a straight transgender couple. She received a "flipped" sex education - she was told the facts of her body, but also that she was a boy and that she would grow up to have a body like her father's (who gave birth to her). However, she was not told that her parents were transgender, but rather that the way that they were was the way that everyone was. She was misled to believe that all the men she saw could have babies - that a person who can have babies is a "man" and a person who gets men pregnant is a "woman."

Imagine an eighth baby. While this baby is physically identical to the others, her parents were a transman and a cisman. While this child was taught the facts of her biology, none of that biology was ever tied back to "boyness" or "girlness" - both of her parents were boys (grown-up boys), one of whom happened to have a certain kind of body and the other of whom happened to have a different kind of body, and because both of her parents were boys, naturally she was a boy as well.

Are any of these women transwomen? If not, is it because of any reason other than their biology?