Have we petitioned Stonewall directly?

You've already done what you set out to do.
You could have asked politely, instead of framing it as a loaded question.
I am quite sure it was deliberate to derail.
It's a bit poor, because if you had decided to start a new thread - other people might have been able to join in and read arguments on your specific question.
Instead, this conversation is hidden away on a thread meant as a brainstorm, speculation, thinking out loud, of how we could speak to the "other side" when aggressive trans rights activists are silencing us and threatening us with actual violence on a daily basis.
I note you have not condemned the inflammatory rhetoric or actions, or taken the time to ask questions about why "we" are concerned.

But fine, let's talk here.

Your Gaul analogy does not hold, in my view, because geography doesn't really apply here, and even from a cheeky Wikipedia, the say:
By the 2nd century BC, the Romans described Gallia Transalpina as distinct from Gallia Cisalpina.
Places are still places, and distinct from each other. They're not the same, no matter what you call them, Paris, Texas is not the same as Paris, France. Additionally: a) there would still be clear boundaries for the greater region of sub-divisions of any territories (which there isn't for the concept of "woman" when it becomes a matter of self-definition and an internal claim of identity), b) the trans and cis areas were separated by the Alps (an actual physical boundary) - which means you're acknowleging that sex is the dividing line here, c) you would have to argue that trans and cis were the same place (which is what you're implicitly doing when you say that trans women the same as women) - when they clearly aren't, d) you would have to start from the premise that you had one region that then expanded, and you re-named it cis/trans, but pretended the whole territory had some kind of properties of the original place.

A better analogy would be to say we have human beings, but they are separated into two by the dividing line of reproductive sex. Humans have called these two groups various names, but they are Female and Male.

Let me introduce you to some head-saving logic.
You cannot define a term by saying it's whatever someone says it is.
That's completely unhelpful, circular, and useless to communicate.
Imagine you are defining "woman" to a child.
How will you tell them what it even MEANS to "identify as a woman", unless you root it in biology? Or will you then start peddling in the gendered stereotypes we talked about (women are submissive, men are forceful, etc)?
Therefore, the biological definition is what matters, and sex matters.
Otherwise biological females could be trans women. But they can't. Because there is nothing to transition from or to.
So I find it easiest to save the headache I get from this illogical nightmare of queer theory by saying the following:
Trans women are trans women. They are biological males who identify as women, and wish to live in the feminine cultural/social role. They can be a third category, just like they claim has always existed in history.
But they are not a sub-group of females / women.
Actual biological sex changes are impossible for humans.
Males can never actually become the same as females.
So: females and males who identify as women are not, and will never be, the same thing. Cis is a completely unnecessary qualifier.
We ALL know this.
There is no person on this planet that looks at Danielle Muscato and truly believes she is the same as a biological female. If they say they do, then they are lying to you.
Keep the concepts clear. Acknowledge that they are separate. Give them different names and definitions. Stop promoting an illogical, impossible ideology.
Trans is different from the opposite sex.
Gender identity is a personal belief.
Trans people should be treated as any other human being.
But insisting others pretend to believe something they do not is not a human right.
Trans women are trans women. But they're not the same as women. If they were, they wouldn't be trans.
And that's fine.

The article is actually really good to look at, if only as a document for how far this ideology has progressed.
Here is a quote I wonder whether JF would stand by now:
'I was not born a woman, nor have I experienced life from birth as a woman, so I'm not making any claims for myself, but in many ways I feel like a teenager again, discovering exactly who I am.'

A central premise of the gender-critical philosophy is that gender is cultural, historical, societal, and is the product of external impositions.
This argument is usually made because we recognize that stereotypes vary over time and across geography. There may be some general patterns that do not fluctuate as much, but there is no evidence to support that it is definitely due to nature over nurture. In any case, the statistical means for patterns of behaviour are so close, with significant overlap in the populations, that it using "gender" to tell us of a person's sex is not very helpful.
I fully support and WELCOME gender non-conformity, because I think these systems are stupid. But how you relate to gender doesn't change your biological sex.
Gender ideology says it is something innate, which means you have to re-define your very identity according to how you relate to whatever it is we know as "gender." And if you are going to deny the stereotyping that goes on with the gender-spectrum teaching for children, then you ought to do some research.
Here is a quote from transactivist Jane Fae, as to why she knew she was a woman:
...Jane says felt she had to 'invent' a male persona to fit in, but at high-powered meetings would feel like a 'shy teenage girl', avoiding the dynamic males and gravitating towards the few women present.

....

'I've always been very feminine and sensitive. I like doing traditionally female activities such as cleaning, ironing, cooking and washing up. The emotional intimacy of love-making has always been more important to me than the physical side.'

www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1252462/Andrea-Fletcher-devoted-fiancee-whos-sticking-man-John-Ozimek-despite-fact-wants-woman-named-Jane-Fae.html

This is why I think you are the one subscribing to sexist theories. The idea that a middle-aged biological male can even know what a teenage girl feels like, or thinks that an affinity to housework somehow confers a claim on the title "woman" sounds far more offensive, to me.

But again, believe whatever you want. I just don't buy into the theory. Sex is my baseline. Not gender identity.

Again, please stop derailing this thread.

The theoretical distinctions between "cis" and "femme" are not of interest to me. By using "cis" you are at least implying that you identify with an indescribable feeling called "womanhood," the boundaries of which are usually explained in terms of the feminine gender role. Both terms are subsets of an ideology that says "I am what I say I am, because I am."
You have every right to believe it, and define yourself however you like. Trans people exist, gender dysphoria is a real thing, and trans people can define themselves however they like. Just like people can follow whatever religion they want. They should absolutely be free to lead happy lives devoid of violence. But there are ideological clashes here. I don't believe in the dogmatic principles of trans activism, just as I don't subscribe to religious assertions. I resent biological sex being minimized, and women being harassed, threatened and persecuted for wanting to define themselves by sex, not gender.

If you wanted to ask a question about how gender-critical this board is - please start a new thread.

But I suspect you're fishing for a specific reaction.