No text, but a visual code

[ololololo]

Therefore, the Voynich Manuscript, even though it is a rare and highly original codex, is deeply embedded in the culture of its time. It is a cultural artifact of that era.

This is true. But that doesn't prove anything.

No one in the 17th century, when we have the first evidence of its existence, imagined that the codex depicted human organs.

I could say, for example, that in the 17th century, no one thought that the language of a manuscript was an astronomical notation system (apologies for simplifying your theory). But I won't say that because I know it's not an argument. No one knows for sure what the manuscript is about, and we can only guess. Maybe they're not even herbs?
You weren't present when the manuscript was written, so you can't say for sure, especially if there's no evidence to support it.

Furthermore, in the 17th century, the symbolic meaning of images had not been lost.

Symbolism is not always obvious. I assume images of organs because this is the kind of information that should be hidden or encrypted. It's not surprising, either, as scientists at the time knew what different organs looked like. 

the first thing to do is to ask what the female figures in the zodiacal section mean, because they are the same.

Not all. There is one image of a man (I can't remember exactly where). Although they hold stars, it sometimes seems that they don't represent them. They may represent a certain time, such as holidays or special days. But I agree that nymphs themselves (out of context) have some kind of similar meaning.

What surprises me is that I have to defend this practically alone.

It's not that bad. If you're on the right path, but people don't believe you, it doesn't mean that you're not on the right path.