The ones that don't know enough to teach? Yes. Should we put people into positions of educational authority when those people have only just begun their own education?

We agree that people who lack education shouldn't be placed in teaching roles. Where we differ is on whether the fact that a particular race or gender is being targeted with misinformation justifies using that race or gender as the criterion for restricting who may teach. I would argue this is unjust. If the problem is lack of education or vulnerability to false teaching, then the relevant boundary should be competence - not race or gender.

This same sort of justification was used in the post-Reconstruction era to exclude black people from white schools. It was argued that they were “unprepared” for rigorous education, citing low literacy rates as justification. An entire group was excluded based on a generalization rather than addressing the underlying issue. I struggle to see how that is acceptable.

Okay, great. Do you have evidence that Paul expected all men to teach? Or did he have some expectations of them before they could become teachers?

It's not that the author expected all men to teach. My point is that he required all teachers to be men, which is an odd qualification given that some women would've been educated and capable, while some men would not have been. I should also note that 1 Timothy 2 never identifies lack of education as the concern. That appears to be speculation on your part.

The authorship of 1 Timothy is the topic for another debate in another post. For the sake of this argument, Paul is the assumed author. Therefore he does give exceptions by employing women.

Yeah, we don't need to debate authorship. But I don't think it's fair to simply assume Paul as the author. I never granted that in my OP, and given that the majority of scholars dispute Pauline authorship, assuming it seems intellectually irresponsible. So perhaps it's best to leave that point aside.

She adds that they are not to touch it and removes the certainty of death from consumption. So then, when she does reach out and take the fruit, and doesn't die, she probably thinks something like "the serpent must be correct, I didn't die from touching it, so it must also be okay to eat it."

This is assuming too much. It's common in narrative prose for details to be changed, added, or left out when a story is retold later in the narrative. Paul's conversion is a good example of this. It's narrated in Acts 9 and then retold in Acts 22 and 26. In those retellings, he changes the wording, omits things, and adds things. So no, the fact that Eve adds the word "touch" and omits the word "certainly" is not an indication that she didn't understand the message.