To dislike male cleaners in female public toilets?

How much do the mitigations you listed re having male cleaners actually lower the risk though? Anyone can make a sign, and often the sign says ‘these toilets may be cleaned by male cleaners’ rather than ‘a male cleaner is currently working in here’ - what’s the difference between that and saying ‘these toilets may be used by anyone identifying as a woman’? Any person can be reported to the police for misconduct/assault - whether they are identifying as a woman or a cleaner, it doesn’t mitigate the risk of it happening. And how does me asking to see a cleaner’s ID lower the risk of them assaulting me? It sounds to me like you’re saying ‘it’s worth taking this risk to make sure the toilets are clean’. If there’s a real risk from allowing male-bodied people in female-only spaces then I wouldn’t want to risk my safety for a slightly cleaner toilet, would you?

I can't speak for everyone of course, but personally I'm not bothered by anyone in loos as long as they're minding their own business.

I am bothered by people who are drunk and lairy, creepy, hassling others etc.

I understand why single sex spaces are preferred by many and do generally think that should be the aim.

I also understand that reality doesn't always allow for a purely single sex space with no blurred lines. I spent many years as a cleaner and cleaned mens loos and changing rooms, dorms / accommodation etc so I have direct personal experience of this from both sides.

Different level of risk, and one risk is balanced by a benefit.
Happy to get behind any campaign for female only cleaners in women's toilets though if other women feel the risk is unacceptable.
Unfortunately the motivation for introducing male cleaners into the debate is rarely to argue toilets would be safer without them. Rather to argue that their presence means we might as well let all men who want to go in do so. When this inevitably rears its head, I think its pertinent to drawer a distinction between the different levels of risk and benefit.

Would you rather the toilets were just dirty, then?

No, I'm generally not bothered by trans women using public loos. The vast majority are just ordinary people, there are some weirdos and creeps, of course (and those guys are generally just perverts, I wouldn't even call them trans). It does help that I have known some genuine transwomen since the 90s, so I don't have that fear.

I am always on high alert for anyone behaving oddly around public loos, and it's junkies (man or woman) that really scare me tbh. I have seen people get atracked. If there's a male toilet attendant about I actually find that reassuring.

I expect opinions will differ. However, in my view, ideally women's toilets would be cleaned by female cleaners and mens by male cleaners and this should be the default policy for cleaning companies.
However, I recognise that this may not be possible, and if its a choice between a male cleaner and an unhygienic toilet, then the least harm for women using the space snd the preferred iption, may well be a male cleaner. Which, as you point out, carries some risk. The sight of the man may distress women. The cleaner may be a sexual predator. Men may carry around buckets mops and signs to pretend to be cleaners.
We then put in processes to mitigate the risk. A sign warning women so they will not be taken by surprise. The ability for women to report official cleaners for impropriety and there being a record of who that person is. Official cleaners having ID rather than just a mop.
With these mitigations the risk from a male cleaner reduces to a level many consider acceptable. And what risk there remains is arguably balanced by the benefit to women of a clean toilet.
Now compare this with any man who says he is a woman being permitted to enter the women's toilets, a situation that is the unavoidable result of allowing those who self ID as women to enter. What are the mitigations that take that from very high risk to women, because there is nothing at all to prevent any man entering, to a level of risk that would be acceptable?
What is the benefit to women that acts as balance to the risk?

You're not unreasonable to feel how you feel, not everyone is comfortable with male cleaners in the ladies. But overall, I don't think it's practical or reasonable to expect only female cleaners in the ladies. I guess you just have to work around it when you encounter it, and that's fair enough in my opinion.

In that case why are one subset of men (trans women) banned but another subset (male workers) allowed?

As long as there is a notice to indicate cleaners may be male or female, like some others no issue and why shouldn't a man do this job?

Yeah, this. I'm GC but I don't understand why trans women are unacceptable in this scenario and ordinary men are not.

The bizarre reason you refer is presumably women didn’t want the jobs? How else do you want to find, magic?

There is always a sign where I live, and cleaners will step out if you need to use the loo and can't wait.

I don't expect any place to hire two people for a job when there is only enough work for one.

Not sure why cleaning mirrors is non essential? I’ve been surprised by a sneeze, for example, over the years and splattered the mirror. If there’s one thing Covid should have taught us, it’s that clean surfaces are important.

My message above was a reply to this btw.

We’re talking about potential risk to women around having male-bodied people allowed in female-only spaces though, aren’t we? I was noting that the replies in this thread seem to differ a lot from usual mumsnet replies re. allowing people identifying as women in women’s toilets. So do responders believe that the risk of someone identifying as a woman in order to gain access to a female-only space is unacceptable, but the risk of someone identifying as a cleaner to get access to female-only spaces is acceptable?

To all the people saying it doesn't bother them, are you then bothered by trans women in the women's loos?

Presumably you will be in a cubicle, and unless you piss like a 🐎, why would you worry?

It’s worse with female cleaners in male toilets to be fair, there’s usually far more urinals than enclosed toilets, never sure whose more embarrassed

Of course. Not as easy as simply walking in and saying you're a woman, no props required though, would it? Plus you didn't say pretend to be a cleaner. You said get a job as a cleaner and that would be easier than pretending to be a woman, which is not in any way true.

It would be fairly easy for a man to walk a toilet under the guise of being a cleaner wouldn’t it? All you need is a mop and a bucket and a sign.

I've thought about it very carefully and explained to you precisely why it's much easier for a man who wishes to assault a woman to simply walk into a women's toilet under the shield of identifying as woman, than it would be for him to get a job as a cleaner. Much easier and much less risk of apprehension. Which is the question you asked.

Many women feel the presence of a man in a space where they might be alone, especially a single sex space, is inherently threatening, regardless of what the man is doing.

Unless he's following you into the cubicle with his mop there's really no issue at all.

Precisely!

I fear you may be underthinking it