With the bound feet example didn't you just make an argument that it is genetic?
No, I didn't. The bound feet example made it very clear that it was NOT genetic.
A genetic trait will still be evident in the subsequent generations. If a girl had her feet bound, her children would have normal sized feet. The only way her children would have tiny feet is if the children's feet were bound. Every subsequent generation would have to have their feet bound for it to show up in every generation. This clearly shows that it is an external influence (the bindings) which are causing the small feet, and not a genetic trait.
With large cell you are forcing the bees to be large like binding the feet to make them small.
Which is an external influence, and not a genetic trait.
If you leave the bee alone and let it make its own cell they will resort to small cell.
If you let the bees draw out comb of their choice, they will draw natural comb. They will not draw small cell.
If generation after generation, you keep introducing foundationless frames into the center of the broodnest, eventually they will draw small patches of 'small cell' in the core of the natural comb broodnest...assuming you are fairly close to the equator. (The farther from the equator, the larger the cells.)
Even the so-called fully regressed bees do not draw out full frames of small cell.
What is natural cell vs. small cell?
Natural cell is what bees choose to draw out, and cell size varies widely, even among cells all being used for the same purpose. (Honey storage cells will vary in size, and worker brood cells will vary in size.) Small cell refers to 4.9mm cell size.