But it is your answer and the fallacy about mixed sex toilets at home that is the fallacy.
Because no toilet at home is being used by strangers coming off the street to use the toilet in the way a public toilet is used. Or do you allow anyone who knocks to use your toilet at home ?
Plus, a female who lives alone and occasionally allows a male friend to use the toilet not only has the right to say to the male friend that they shouldn’t visit. Therefore they can completely restrict access.
But even if they allow access, they already have prior experience with that male person that they can fall back on to shape their prediction of future risk of attack (or even mess.) So they can assess their likelihood of being attacked with very high rates of accuracy before making the decision to either allow that well known male to use the toilet or for that woman to use the single cubicle toilet in the house with the male being present in the other rooms while she is using the toilet . Archeryannie points this out.
Plus it is a single cubicle and the resident of that home is not trying to use the adjacent toilet cubicle as well.
I think you will find your analogy is the fallacious one and that the ‘home toilet’ analogy was always a false analogy at worst, or a very weak one full of very obvious holes at best. When I read your post, I thought you were posting sarcastic humour because the ‘unisex toilet at home’ analogy has been pointed out to be so badly flawed.