Challenging no single sex toilets at work

Lots of useful answers here already, but on a related (yet separate) note, you could (innocently) enquire about the facilities available to breastfeeding employees (e.g. to express milk.)
These should NOT be toilets. But lack of such specific provision would strengthen any potential sex discrimination case.

Also look into things (mentioned by others already) such as sanitary bins (are they provided in all the loos? otherwise, not truly mixed sex. And bear in mind these bins cost money to empty, so management may be tempted to only have half of them, or even none!), and do raise health and safety aspects. More angles = better.
Your specific (mental health/disability related) is obviously also valid, and should be accounted for.
Remind them of their duty as an employer to consider all characteristics under the Equality Act (+ general duty of care towards the safety and well being of all their employees)

Until safeguarding against cameras is implemented, no toilets should be mixed sex.

If they are completely independent cubicles I think you would find it difficult to argue but i would still raise

This does not seem to be the case here. This appears to be a toilet block accessed through a door from a public area. Beyond this door is a series of cubicles divided by partitions but with doors floor to ceiling and a wash basin within the cubicle. This is not a single use facility.

But what is wrong with single sex toilets. ?

Are women and men shouting for unisex toilets ?

Can’t they just have one unisex toilet.

Then the people that need the unisex one can go there

I actually like the self contained cubicles and dont mind them being mixed sex but i think the location is really important and in a little room of their own or down a dead end small corridor wouldnt be a safe feeling. I also agree that safeguarding against being filmed or photgraphed is important.

In addition to the mandatory emergency cords, it is also partially why single-occupancy accessible toilets are placed in a central location, to maximise the probability that someone will notice the door has been locked for a very long time, and realise help is needed.

@Artichokeleaves

Yes, disabled toilets are obviously less safe because someone who has collapsed cannot be seen or reached. This is in part why disabled loos have emergency call cords.

Any comment, @BlueberryCheezecake ? Wasn't quite the 'gotcha' you'd anticipated.

Yes, disabled toilets are obviously less safe because someone who has collapsed cannot be seen or reached. This is in part why disabled loos have emergency call cords.

Went to a university open day recently where there was a row of self-contained loos opening onto a main corridor. Gender neutral. No issue from a single sex point of view (I get though what some have said on safety floor ceiling etc.) as privacy was good but they were a bit less clean than women only. the most noticeable thing though was the queue. It was full of men - being an open day there were a lot of Dads - as well as women. Women queue all the time but these men had probably never had to queue for a pee in their lives before. Snd because you use the loo, then the sink, then the dryer, plus any other colostomy bag emptying/ sanitary towel fixing / lipstick applying / hair fixing or whatever before you leave meaning one person can be ages in a cubical.

This is longer than when someone comes out of the loo to use the sink in a communal sink/mirrors/dryers area (women only hopefully) when much of this post-loo stuff is done out the cubical at the row of sinks.

So everyone waited longer, women and men. And I wonder if men at your place of work find they have to wait longer if there'll be sudden changes in policy once the toilets OP mentions have been built. A hasty row of urinals on one of those corridors by the 3 cubicles the OP mentions? suddenly a Men's sign slapped on that unit and the others all being gender neutral, meaning women miss out on a women's only space?

Maybe worth asking if they have considered the time factor.

Especially if faced with this anywhere were breaks are a tight, fixed time (schools for example).

Equality Impact Assessment. Also a good tool to use.

Would add to pp's very good suggestions:

Has any survey been done of the staff?

What percentage of staff are enthusiastic about or even basically able to use mixed sex facilities?

What proportion of facilities should be mixed sex and what should remain single sex to reflect employee need and diversity?

Because there's no point in retaining two female only loos in a basement somewhere if 35 female staff will be needing to take time away from their desk and walk down there to queue to use them.

That's not great
We have individual cubicles (straight off a main hallway), floor to ceiling with hand dryer/basin/mirror/sanitary disposal in each and they are labelled as single sex
The women's has sanitary products, hand cream, deo etc in too

Maybe ask why they are putting them in in the first place? What is wrong with single sex? Did people complain about single sex before? Has anyone asked for mixed sex now? Have the staff been asked their views? Point out women generally hate them in your experience and men do to. Ask if you can run a consultation of all staff to canvass views. And if they say no, ask why not?

Our building has these (in a public space) - all off a narrow dark, gloomy corridor that opens both ends on the basement. It’s bloody creepy! The local junkies used to go there to shoot up/have a sleep. It was pretty unpleasant.

We have gender neutral toilets but all individual cubicles with hand basins, it works really well. I agree with above if your only option are mixed sex with shared facilites I think it's discriminatory. If they are completely independent cubicles I think you would find it difficult to argue but i would still raise

Although frankly it's going to take some women taking their employers to court and sueing the crap out of them before some of these idiots engage their brains.

Protected characteristics under law include:

Faith, culture, race, disability (especially neurodiversity, trauma, PTSD, MH needs): the staff may include female employees who due to these protected characteristics cannot use mixed sex facilities. And like you, may have to consider this workplace as inaccessible and no longer an option for them. (And then look into the pay out for discrimination via legal action against the employers.)

Employees cannot be required to disclose highly sensitive, confidential information in order to justify provision being made available to them. The duty of inclusion is proactive. Employers must be aware and prepared that these female staff are likely to be amongst their employees as much as they're getting so vigorously prepared for trans/NB staff. Inclusion is not selective, there are 9 characteristics. Not one. Regardless of what Stonewall thinks.

Employees would very likely have a case, and get a payout. The insurers and your employers might like to think about doing some arse covering ASAP.

I'd highlight the problem with molka.

This is the ghastly business of men hiding miniature cameras in toilets, changing rooms, hotel rooms etc used by women to livestream women using them to online viewers who pay for the kink.

Questions to ask:

What risk assessment does the employer have in place to ensure this is not happening / can't happen?

What standard operating procedure is there in place should it be discovered that it is happening?

What disciplinary / compensatory procedure is in place should it happen?

www.theguardian.com/world/2019/oct/02/south-korea-woman-kills-herself-after-being-secretly-filmed-by-doctor-reports

I've climbed over a toilet stall to get to someone unconscious and unlock the door. Couldn't do that with floor to ceiling cubicles so for me they are a no every single time. Totally unsafe unless you can easily unlock them from outside, in which case....