buddy I think you are really missing the point, let me copy and paste from Wikipedia:

An appeal to nature is a rhetorical technique for presenting and proposing the argument that “a thing is good because it is ‘natural’, or bad because it is ‘unnatural’ or ‘synthetic’.”[1] In debate and discussion, an appeal-to-nature argument can be considered to be a bad argument, because the implicit primary premise “What is natural is good” has no factual meaning beyond rhetoric in some or most contexts.

But the whole point of my argument is that I think she is using naturally in lieu of “normally” rather than as a precursor for healthy or good.

It doesn’t matter if she says “normally” or “naturally,” or if she never says “good” or “healthy;” by using the natural (or normal, or typical, or whatever word you want to use) state of the human body as reason for why it should be there, that is an appeal to nature.

Wikipedia even has a section about natural/normal:

In some contexts, the use of the terms of “nature” and “natural” can be vague, leading to unintended associations with other concepts. The word “natural” can also be a loaded term – much like the word “normal”, in some contexts, it can carry an implicit value judgment. An appeal to nature would thus beg the question, because the conclusion is entailed by the premise.[2]

And in that context, begging the question refers to the actual fallacy, which is:

begging the question or assuming the conclusion (Latin: petītiō principiī) is an informal fallacy that occurs when an argument’s premises assume the truth of the conclusion

Is that what you mean by tautology?