I'm not a woman - which facilities should I use

Absolutely right.

If you are biologically female and an adult human, you are a woman. That's what 'woman' means, (so ...) that's what being a woman is.

To identify as such-and-such is to say of oneself that one is such-and-such. But I can say of myself that I am the reincarnation of Paul Revere's horse without being the reincarnation of ... well, anything. (It follows ...) what you identify as has no bearing on what you are.

If you are a woman, you should use women's facilities.

Complicated? No.

(Tldr: Identify, schmidentify, what does it matter so long as you use the right facilities (ffs).)

I’d change the final words of your post to read “Not at all. Ever”.

And your first question: nobody can ever answer this without saying how complicated and complex it is, and then either changing the subject or getting angry - because they can’t answer it. Yet children know what it is and indeed want to “switch gender”, apparently 😵‍💫

I think that a request to keep sex predators away from our children, is not an unreasonable request.

Gender??!! What the fuck is gender, really?

You might as well go about quacking star signs!

Physical sex is a reality. Provable. Since forever. Gender, star signs, not so much.

someone mentions Taliban? We have a woke Taliban in the U.K. which is trying to force its gender ideology on us all no matter what science says. It is a lie. A man cannot become a woman and vice versa. Sorry!

Your gender is technically immaterial when it comes to facilities which have been designed and engineered for the female\ male sex and respective bodily functions. Hence urinals in mens and more cubicles etc in female toilets. Changing areas for females may have hairdryers etc..

I suspect as there is usually a man or woman symbol to denote the two areas it had suddenly become an issue for the gender is everything movement.

Agender people (is this different from gender neutral) would ideally use gender neutral toilets.
gender neutral toilets don't exist so the binary system of l/f loos is insufficient to deal with the reality of trans identity's.
stonewall would argue that the problem is not their notion of identity (which you said upthread you don't reject) but loo provision.

you can challenge the idea thst everyone has a grande identity but I think that they would challenge this notion. As it is the notion of gender identity is fundamentally flawed but the flaw is not exposed by your arguement.

I think you would have been better off starting a thread saying you don't support stonewall because you don't believe it makes sense to divorce gender identity from sex because if that's all gender comes down to chaos will ensue. Everyone GC will agree with that and anyone who is not gender critical will not be prowling this area of Mumsnet ready to explain why they think you're wrong.

The whole toilet angle is an long winded way of trying to make this point. It is agonising because you are essentially saying to stonewall "I don't really buy into the notion of gender identity as sufficient to define gender so where do I fit into your scheme". And the answer is you don't, you're outside of it and because you don't buy into the assumptions to start with your arguments do not expose a logical flaw in the argument.

Why should gender (how one feels about oneself - or ‘essence/ soul/
being’) trump sex in loos (ie - do we need urinals, tampon bins, free tampons, clothes pegs for the cleaners noses when scrubbing pee off the loo seats)?

op is correctly pointing out the inconsistencies in the generic definition of woman. She is saying, if you accept the stonewall position, this is the logical conclusion. The problem is, gc people don’t buy the genderist definition and genderists don’t care about the inconsistencies, so very few people are agreeing.
I agree, op, that if woman is an umbrella term grouping some females and some males by dint of some mysterious inner sense of womanliness, I also am not a woman. I also agree that it’s a nonsense definition and the sex based meaning is the only one that works, and that stonewall doesn’t give a crap about how I self define because I’m just a middle aged terf type woman and not entitled to any of their “cool” gender labels.

And who cares any more if we are branded "transphobic" for defending women's rights and the safeguading of children? Call me a "transphobe"? It's exactly like calling me a "paedophobe".

Over the past few days, what with Gender ideologues turned out to be people such as the paedophile-adjacent man, Jacob Breslow, who until recently was a trustee of the Mermaids "trans children" "charity".

And also one of Mermaids staff, a "digital engagement officer" who had posted pictures of his penis and areshole online.

Men like these: paedophile-adjacent, kinksters, male sexual exhibitionist: are these really the men we want to be looking after troubled children? Or, indeed, any children?

Or men like these pushing themselves into women's spaces?

Well, no. Not at all. I had thought Jimmy Savile had taught us something about nonces in work with charities and children, but apparently not.

'Gender ideologues', over the past few days, have turned out to be people such as the paedophile-adjacent man, Jacob Breslow, who until recently was a trustee of the Mermaids "trans children" "charity".

And also one of Mermaids staff, a "digital engagement officer" who had posted pictures of his penis and areshole online.

Men like these: paedophile-adjacent, kinksters, male sexual exhibitionist: are these really the men we want to be looking after troubled children? Or, indeed, any children? Well, no. Not at all. I had thought Jimmy Savile had taught us something about nonces in work with charities and children, but apparently not.

Yes. That's what I want. That's what a lot of us want. But in so doing we are branded as transphobic. because we are denying the right of trans people to fully identify with the gender of their choosing. because at heart I believe that sex matters and the 'gender ideologues' claim that they don't.

But rather than engage in ever more convoluted thinking; can't we just say that Women's sports, facilities, prisons, changing rooms, toilets etc, are just for women, born women, female sex.

And provide men's and/or third spaces for the dissemblers?

Just keep women's rights and facilities for women. Don't care what the various men would then argue amongst themselves.

Exactly. The OP is saying" I don't identify as any gender (agender) and therefore I can't choose a toilet based on my gender. What would stonewall have to say about that." The OP thinks that this reveals a flaw in the 'gender ideologues' (stonewall being used as a shorthand for this) argument.

However, it doesn't really. Stonewall would say, "join us in advocating for gender free or gender neutral toilets".

At some point they would realise that the OP seems to actually believe that single sex spaces are quite important and that sex does matter, in which case the stonewall supporters are going to question the OP commitment to being 'agender' and stop engaging.

Gender ideology just doesn't make any sense in the real world, where we have real women and real men and real children.

And given the very recent revelations about Mermaids, never mind anything else - it seems a very nonce adjacent point of view.

I liked the "genderfree" thing we had, briefly, a few years ago! There was a poster on here whose work could send LGBTQI++ on a course, so she applied on account of being "genderfree"!

I wonder where she is now!

Are you saying Stonewall says that if you identify as female or male, use the toilets that align with that identity but they don’t specify which toilets to use if you don’t identify as F or M ?
I am so confused 😒

Also how agender are you if you are sharing in the history and experience of being female. How agender are you if you want single sex toilets because you get worried if you are not in a female only space? By acknowledging the potential threat of men, by having to live with the threat of male violence, you are living like a woman. I still don't have any idea what you mean by agender.

I don't know what they say

but if you think that it is offensive to assume a racial identity

but not offensive to assume a gender identity

then you are saying there is not parity between the two

and everything I have read about why people feel Rachel Dolezal (or anyone claiming to be trans-racial) is offensive speaks about the unspeakable racism of appropriating black experience

And I don't understand why anyone could not see that there is an equivalence in the oppression of women over the centuries and across the globe, and why no one is worried about appropriating that (I'm less worried about trans men, as identifying up the power structure is less offensive than identifying down).

do feel free to add it to your questions you want to raise with stonewall.

Also re your (faux?) shock at the idea of body and identity being divided - that's why there is a whole argument that lesbians who won't sleep with trans women are actually transphobic (i.e. they do not accept that it is legitimate to have a sex based rather than a gender based sexual preference).

Well, yes. People like the current Stonewall, and many others, fail to recognise history, and it is a very very long history, of women being oppressed, and even enslaved by men. All over the globe.