Maybe, just maybe, your view of Gen 1–2 is incorrect

From these data it is easy to conclude that Adams sleep has prepared him for a visionary experience rather than for a surgical procedure. The description of himself being cut in half and the woman being built from the other half (Gen 2:21-22) would refer not to something he physically experienced but to something that he saw in a vision. It would therefore not describe a material event but would give him an understanding of an important reality, which he expresses eloquently in Genesis 2:23. Consequently, we would then be able to conclude that the text does not describe the material origin of Eve. The vision would concern her identity as ontologically related to the man. The text would therefore have no claim to make about the material origin of woman.—The Lost World of Adam and Eve, p. 80

<idle musing>
Now this all assumes that you are not so a priori committed to a slavish interpretation of the words in a 21st century context. If you are, then all this will sound to you like wishy-washy exegesis. But, guess what? The earth revolves around the sun! That was quite the revelation to the medieval period exegetes and they scrambled to make sense of it.

Perhaps, just perhaps, the philosophical underpinnings of your exegesis should be examined. Then come back to the text and stop treating it like a history or science textbook. Because that is not what God intended it to be.

Just an
</idle musing>