My point is, according to the evidence you've provided here - it's not going to reduce risk.
Spectacularly failing to understand what we're talking about. Changing all female-only facilities to mixed-sex will increase risk to females. That's precisely why we oppose it.
We are defending the existence of female-only provisions and campaigning against the abolition of single-sex facilities that females are granted the right to as per domestic law, our human rights as per the UN's CEDAW (that the UK is a signatory to) and as per the wishes of the majority of the group most adversely affected by changing to mixed-sex facilities, ie females.
What this means is that we are seeking to at worst maintain the risk at current levels, but aiming to at least eventually reduce it through a raft of measures, including teaching males to respect female boundaries, training females that they have the right to assert these boundaries around their own bodies against all males as well as raising public awareness, always hoping to one day eliminate risk altogether.
The current setup means that only the most determined perverts invade women's toilets, those whose perverted need is stronger than the social taboo against entering female-only facilities despite the huge risk of getting caught. In mixed-sex facilities, whether that is via so called gender neutral facilities or via allowing self-identifying males into female-only facilities, there will be no risk inherent in a pervert's mere presence in the facility. They will have every right to be there and we can't protest against it.
As for examples, I have a local one for you: 18 year-old pervert identifying as trans using female-only public toilets, first attempting to video a 12 year-old girl using the loo then progressing to assaulting a ten year-old girl in a different town, again in a female-only public toilet.
We will never know whether that pervert would have dared to enter a female-only toilet if people like you hadn't advocated for abolishing the right of females to safety and privacy in single-sex facilities.
But we do know, as the pervert was actually accompanied by a social worker on the second occasion, that had people like you not made female-only toilets unsafe by demanding access for males, said social worker would have accompanied said pervert to the male-only toilet in the second supermarket and said pervert would not have been able to follow that poor little girl into the women's toilets.
Of course, I expect you to dismiss this incident a la "one bad apple" etc. Which would lead me to ask, how many little girls must be terrorised and traumatised for life before people like you consider the price too high?
One girl is too much for me. What about you?
Btw, I grow and store fruit now and one bad apple definitely rots the whole tray. And the fact that this pervert hasn't been disowned unlike Karen White or Yanniv or the other predators, but instead got placed in a hostel with vulnerable women (because they weren't girls and so presumably considered fair game) with nothing but radio silence from the usual orgs clamouring to abolish women's sex-based rights is rather telling.