The Kantian style of autonomy is far too idealistic in my opinion, it centers the most privileged group in society and shows autonomy through it's perspective, one with immense monetary support but no conditions, no responsibility to a family, no consequence of it's society. Though a nice base to start from, I agree that it's very exclusionary to anyone who doesn't fit in this group, specifically Women. Women are by birth exposed to imaging of them being submissive, mothers and wives. Toys in the women section will have stickers on 'I am just a girl', babies and cribs, the clothes of baby girls are also significantly different, at ages where there is no physical difference there will be a stark difference in female underwear, female shirts compared to male underwear and shirts, they will be far smaller and more cropped. Women are grown into a society that requires them weak, submissive and unquestioning of the nature, and we see the results in our society. Only a person who is not exposed to any imaging, be it gendered, class, race, or anything at all can be fully autonomous by this strict definition in reality.
I also find the discussion of being aware of Why you desire what you desire very interesting, in class we did a discussion on a woman, who claimed she thought very much on her descision of being a housewife, but the main point where everyone doubted her relied on this question, is she truly aware of why she wishes to be a housewife? If she were aware that it was imaging shown to her from a young age, and were it to be removed and her to never had that influence, would she have made that choice? This is going far closer to a logical take on autonomy for me, when women pass on their traditions of conservatism, they are always unable to answer why it must be the way it is.
Why must a women be the 'submissive' one in the relationship?
Why must a women like children, and desire motherhood?
When it comes to Externalist or Internalist approaches I feel they can't be seperate categories from one another, the external world, being your class, your family, your outside relations will have a very strong link to your psychology, what links and patterns you create. It's similar to how many people carry genes that make them prone to depression and OCD, however it is external stimuli that determines whether those genes are activated or not for many.
I believe you can never achieve full autonomy, but the closest you can gain to it is realise why you think what you think and how interlinked it is to factors you can't control, your class, your parents, your race, your gender, and more importantly realise the structure the world is built on and the lines it creates through groups to control. The imaging we are told on class, race and gender is set up to someone's benefit beyond us, and the parents, friends and relations we have are all victim of the same messaging. So the most important question to me is when assesing if my descision is autonomous is 'who benefits from my this descision?' but even that requires you to have awareness of who benefits and in what proportions. So does autonomy actually exist at all?