Only as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
Generally, the aims of women's single sex spaces and resources are legitimate because they protect women from male entitlement and/or create opportunities for women to reduce our economic or cultural disadvantages relative to men.
Generally, the aims of men's single sex spaces and resources are not legitimate because men do not need protection from female entitlement and have economic and cultural advantages relative to women.
When those generalities do not hold, for example the clear legitimate aim of the Men's Sheds movement, the case can easily be made for men-only spaces or provisions.
And sometimes, the need for woman-only provisions to mitigate problems faced by women creates a subsequent need for men-only provisions so men do not lose out even though the men themselves would not be disadvantaged by being with women.
All this is to say, the idea that there's some sort of tit for tat, sauce for the goose is good for the gander moral equivalence to single sex provisions for men and women is to misunderstand why these things exist.
In a world where we were totally equal and equally safe already, it's not that we'd have equal single sex spaces, we'd have none. Single sex spaces exist to solve/mitigate problems of inequality.
(All this said, I'm sure religions get exemptions anyway. Doesn't make it right though).