Your title for this thread: If (questionable, faulty, and reduced to an absurd) premise, then what about this red herring?

Your first sentence in the post: Someone says something that in this sentence may or not may not be accurately represented.

Your second sentence: Something according to (edited) my your interpretation of that source can perform a specific task (a transformation into a different or more specific thing) so an even more specific transformation you propose is EXPECTED (note you are not saying possible now but expected. You've moved the goal post from talking about things that are possible to what is expected).

Your third sentence: Taking this unsupported expectation as a new premise concerning cells transforming into very specific cells, you offer a begging of the question about a wholly unrelated question that is not about cells but about coherently organized human bodies, and you then offer your unsupported expectation as a mechanism for the specific answer you pose in your begging of the question.

There is the idea of cherry picking evidence, but you are not doing that because you are just stringing together empty musings.

You also pull a bait and switch with the "everyone is" part by then throwing in the "all that's needed" part, where "all" is a very convenient assumption you expect to be accepted.

Learn about what cells are. Realize that a cell can do none of the things that a human can do, so the categories of man or woman do not apply to cells even if there are analogous aspects of the ideas or if there are correlations between specific types of cells with being a man or a woman.

Also, there is no real clarity in what you're asking because you are too busy filling your bs with faulty assumptions and bad rhetorical tricks. Are you saying a man or a woman can potentially be grown via technology and laboratory (your bad syntax, not mine) from the same stem cells? Are you equating all cells or all our cells or all your cells ("But if all cells ...") with with stem cells?