No, sorry, that wasn't what battle was describing at all - although I grant you that in order to try and understand what battle was saying, you needed to actually listen.
A uterus does not define how a person responds as a child to gender socialisation does it? Children feel different for lots of reasons, that battle didn't respond in the same way to all the pink-dolly-tea-party-learn-to-be-a-good-wifey socialisation that goes with being a considered a girl, that doesn't mean it was because she was seeing being a pink-dolly-tea-party-learn-to-be-a-good-wifey stuff and thinking badly about her peers and mothers and sisters.
It just meant that they responded to it differently - it is your supposition that puts that in a negative light.
And don't forget, that socialisation also tries to tell those of who have (or assumed to have, as it turned out for a friend of mine, who didn't because of MRKH) uterus', how we are also supposed to feel about our bodies.
Battle's response may not have been very different to some, but it would have been different to others, and of course they would have felt that. None of that, however, is the same as declaring a hatred.
And children don't like to feel different from their peers, it frightens them. Being frightened as a child about how you are experiencing your own body and conscious self - because it does not fit with what it is told it should be - must be difficult enough. For it then to be misunderstood/misinterpreted/misrepresented as 'unpleasant ideas about females'...
If someone's experience of life does not match your idea of how it is or should be - that is not necessarily make that other person guilty of something.