We're so far down the rabbit hole I can't tell if this sticker is real or fake...

[gherkinmerkinn]

...on toilet cubicle in shopping centre

It’s transparent GC hate-mongering.

Well the disabled toilet queue must be long in that case.

I think I'd take out the quote marks, as they are look sarcastic.
Women, girls, and males who identify as women.
Just stating the policy clearly and factually should be the aim.

Interesting that @DadJoke has come along to tell us off. Obviously the TRA side can threaten actual violence to women and that's fine, but we can't even express sarcasm lest we offend them.

So we will simply make sure we inform the general public of the facts.

And if merely stating the policy is "hate-mongering" then perhaps @DadJoke needs to have a little think about why the public might hate the policy, and why they think it's ok to make these changes without informing people.

I agree. I'll remove the quotes!

Makes it more .... WTF!!

Here we go
... yes its hateful to not want men in their dead mothers knickers using toilets and changing rooms with actual women and children

Women pointing out that men are taking the piss is 'hate' is it?

No love. Women saying no to men and pointing out their abhorrent behaviour towards women is not 'hate'. I think you could argue that men invading women's spaces and excluding women from them is a bit 'hateful' though. Don't you think?

I mean compare 'hearing no' or 'seeing a summary of my behaviour that I don't like because it's not all fluffy and disguised' compared to 'lost use of any public facility'. It's not up to women to protect men's feelings while being abused by them. Get a grip.

Eh? What's wrong with "biological man"? Jeez, I'm old.

There's nothing wrong with it.

It shouldn't' be necessary, though - 'man / men' used to mean adult human male, and still should.

But because some people insist that 'man / men' means any and all humans who call themselves men (see also 'woman / women'), for clarity we have to specify what kind of man (new usage) and say 'biological man / men'.

What is wrong with it is that it jars someone's preferred reality.

Why that is in any way your problem, I don't know.

Rule 3 of the rules of misogyny

1. Women speaking for themselves are exclusionary and selfish.

https://4w.pub/the-rules-of-misogyny/

The problem is that women referring to themselves is inherently offensive to some (misogynistic) people. Changing which words we use to refer to women can't solve the problem when the 'problem' is that we shouldn't be allowed to refer to ourselves, or be recognised as a type of human being that happen to have their sex in common.

So replacing women with 'female' only leads to them claiming female as an identity word too. 'biological women', 'natal women' etc. they passionately object whatever words are used

The 'female' bit was the whole movement taking it past the point of rationality though. That was the hand overplayed.

"I am a male self identified woman (with a lot of wangling about the social context of woman" .... yeah, generously, I may stretch a point and be kind about that. I was for years.

"I am a male female"

No. Let's not be silly.

Realistically, it's "men who say they feel like women", not "men who feel like...".

No way to know what their actual feelings are - they may honestly think they "feel like a woman" (whatever the hell that means though), but they could just as easily "feel very sexually excited when using female facilities and being allowed to get undressed around actual women and girls, and watch them undress" but have just learned that the magic words they need to say to get this are "well, I've always felt like a woman inside".

All we - or David Lloyd, or anyone else with policies like this - have to go on is words that men say.