“Are you denying that this child is Jesus?”
No, the child is clearly symbolic of Jesus, but that does not make the woman Mary.
You see, you are dealing with a prophetic vision. The vision is composed in symbolic language, and those symbols must be properly interpreted for the meaning of the vision to be made clear. That’s true, not just for this verse, but for almost the entirety of Revelation.
Now, the interpretation you favor is flawed, and that is easily demonstrated because it is not consistent. Only parts of the vision are interpreted as symbols, while others are read literally. For example, you interpret “the woman” literally, as a human female individual who bore Jesus. Yet, the description of this woman cannot be read literally. She could not literally have 12 stars on her head, or she would be instantly incinerated, along with the rest of the planet. Similarly, if “the dragon” flung 1/3 of the literal stars in the sky into the planet, the planet would have been destroyed as well. So you are cherry picking which parts of the vision to interpret, some literally, others symbolically, and then ignoring large sections of it without bothering to interpret them at all. The results of such a method can’t be viewed with any confidence at all, because the method is entirely subjective.
If you want to make the argument that the woman is a symbol for Mary, then you are going to have to be consistent about it. Demonstrate how the symbol represents Mary instead of other candidates, and then demonstrate how you can interpret the entire vision in the context of that symbol meaning Mary without creating contradictions and inconsistencies. Such an exercise can only serve to underline the flaw in trying to identify Mary with “the woman”.
Did we FORGET something???
Revelation 12:6 Then the woman fled into the wilderness where she had a place prepared by God, so that there she would be nourished for one thousand two hundred and sixty days.