So are you saying we should not deviate from what mainstream society says about bodily privacy? Every single social movement that gained rights for a marginalized group had to fight mainstream social conventions. Maybe they should have accepted social conventions that black people as slaves and LGBs as deviant subhumans.

Oh c'mon. Conflating very different issues like this is ludicrous. Of course the anti-slavery movement, civil rights movement, women's rights movements, and gay and lesbian rights movements all challenged laws and social conventions, but they did not seek to remove from any single group the right to bodily privacy from the opposite sex when using public or communal toilets, change rooms, locker rooms or showers.

Gay and lesbian rights were won by arguing that who people have sex with is their own private business - the state and society have no right to dictate what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms/homes (or bath houses, gay clubs, etc). Women's right to abortion in the US was won based on the idea that women have a right bodily autonomy and that what goes on between a woman and her HCPs is private between them, not for the government to intrude upon. Women succeeded in the effort to get sexual harassment at work and rape in marriage made illegal by establishing in law that women have a right to set boundaries.

When women entered previously all-male domains such as previously male-only colleges and universities, we sought - and obtained - equal access to the classrooms, libraries, labs, dining halls, student unions, sports facilities, etc - but we did not seek to make the men's toilets, showers, locker rooms and sports teams all mixed sex. We sought and obtained our own. Even though many schools had mixed-sex dorms, women didn't insist that males now must have females as roommates. Both sexes wanted to have the option of sharing dorm rooms and other intimate facilities such as loos and locker rooms solely with members of their own sex. Because boundaries around bodily privacy matter to most people of both sexes. Not to all people in all settings. But to most people in certain settings.

Same thing happened in all the other previously all-male workplaces and other institutions that women joined. Women in factories and offices didn't fight to be able to use the same toilets, change rooms and showers as men used; they sought their own. Because when women had to share with the men, some of the men were predatory and abusive to the women.

I think Gavin Grimm and any other female should have the right to use boy's toilets if they so desire

I also don't want men to have the same legal protections women have regarding their spaces.

Just as TRAs want to remove bodily privacy rights from female people, you want to remove bodily privacy rights from male people. You and the TRAs are just flip sides of the same coin.

Moreover, you are overlooking the practical realities. The half of the population you want to remove bodily privacy rights from just so happen to be the group that wield the most political power in society, and they are also the half of the population with bodies that are bigger and stronger than female bodies, and who have a far, far greater propensity for aggression, violence, sexual predation, territoriality, weaponry, warfare and physical fighting. Pushing to remove basic rights from boys and men might strike you as feminist, but to me it sounds imprudent, impolitic and puerile. I fear that pushing to remove bodily privacy rights from boys and men whilst asserting and ring fencing those rights solely for girls and women will result in a huge backlash - and thus will undermine rather than advance the safety, privacy, bodily autonomy, wellbeing and liberation of girls and women.