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

[Whatiswrongwithmyknee]

Genuinely interested to hear what supporters of gender ideology would recommend here. I am biologically female but do not identify as a woman. I am officially trans though in reality I don't think I am the sort of person Stonewall meant to refer to in their definition of trans (I am gender critical - which for those who have been misled by some made-up definitions, to me means that sometimes sex, rather than gender, matters. It is not an anti-trans stance).

The question is - which facilities should I use? I should not be in the ladies if that is defined by identity but using the men's does not feel right either. How do gender ideologists suggest I negotiate this?

'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.

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.

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.

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

It's not just toilets though is it? Do Stonewall want gender-free everything? Do they want a complete breakdown of any system of sex-based, sorry gender-based segregation? If so, I think they should be honest so that their supporters can be sure they want to support the abolition of all hospital ward, prisons and such like being completely mixed sex - i.e. you are as likely to find a man as a woman in your cell with you if you're a woman. Sorry, a male as a female in your cell with you if you're a female. Their supporters can be sure they don't want news sites to say that the Taliban are dismantling education for 'girls', just for half of all children etc. If you follow Stonewall's position to a logical conclusion we do not know anyone is a man or woman until they tell us so. There is no other reason to make that assumption.

Personally I find it offensive when men claim women's pronouns because I think it is logically a denial of those current oppressions. I think it is a literal act of violence.

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)?

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.

I disagree @realign If their arguments hinge on the assumption that everyone has a gender identity, this needs to be challenged. However, they acknowledge that some people are agender. They do not, however, consider which facilities cater for them. They want to divorce facilities from body types so there is no sense in saying I should use the 'female' ones. I think segregating facilities by an identity which a small percentage of the population actually have is a massive flaw.

I also don't not believe in gender identity. I can believe that others feel something without doing so myself and I don't want to restrict someone's identity. I think we should not use the word 'gender' to describe their feeling though as using a word which is understood very differently in common parlance is causing all sorts of confusion and chaos. That said....I think their arguments hinge on not bringing too much into the light. If I am wrong though a supporter of their ends can explain how.

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.

We can agree to disagree. Gender neutral jails do not work for me even though I'm agender. If you're saying Stonewall are arguing for them then I think there are many people who would consider that a major flaw.

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.

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!

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.

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

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 😵‍💫

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).)

Absolutely right.