I think those sciencey questions are best suited for biologists. GC would probably have more to say about the social implications of that technology (if it existed), but the science part should be left to scientists.

That there might be neopenises that look, feel and function exactly like natural penises? Or neovaginas that look, feel and function exactly like natural vaginas?

QT believes we've already achieved this. Apparently even a gynecologist can't tell the difference lol.

Is there a reason why a neopenis that looks, feels, and functions exactly like natural penises can not be considered a real penis? Or a neovagina that looks, feels, and functions exactly like natural vaginas can not be considered a real vagina? Despite doing the same things? Wouldn't a laboratory meat that tastes, looks, feels and functions exactly like natural meat be considered real meat?

If we go by dictionary definitions, something's "realness" depends on whether it is natural or artificial. Neo-genitals and laboratory meat are man-made, they are artificial. So they are not "real" by definition. They could appear and function identically to the real thing, but the fact they are artificially produced is what makes them, well, artificial.