Yes, I’ll back them up, but of course you have no intention of trying to understand.
The point is that verses from all four gospels are listed, each showing that Jesus was thought of, and referred to, as the son of Joseph (thereby apparently satisfying the reckoning by law aspect). Of course, I don’t have the first century law to quote you, but according to the material Speedwell pointed to, Africanus, who lived within 150 years of Jesus provided information from his time for the following:
“3. whereas then some of those who are inserted in this genealogical table succeeded by natural descent, the son to the father, while others, though born of one father, were ascribed by name to another, mention was made of both of those who were progenitors in fact and of those who were so only in name.
4.
Thus neither of the gospels is in error, for one reckons by nature, the other by law. For the line of descent from Solomon and that from Nathan were so involved, the one with the other, by the raising up of children to the childless and by second marriages, that the same
persons are justly considered to belong at one time to one, at another time to another; that is, at one time to the reputed fathers, at another to the actual fathers.
So that both these accounts are strictly true and come down to Joseph with considerable intricacy indeed, yet quite accurately.”
The ‘back up’ you requested is listed above (which would seem to apply to your hypothetical case as well, if your daughter was a son)... now we’ll see who’s quibbling?