Peaking, it's interesting that your take on this question is to assume that the only people, or the principle people, at risk of being harassed or harmed when out and about in the world are those who view themselves as gender nonconforming or visibly trans.

Whereas I viewed the questions asked in the OP as being about how much discomfort, harassment and risk women (and children) should have to put up with in order to accommodate, placate and not incur the wrath of mainly male persons who view themselves as gender nonconforming or trans. After all, OP said

I often see it argued that women should “dismantle” or simply put aside their discomfort, fear for safety, and needs for privacy, in order to accommodate males who wish to use spaces that had previously been for women only.

How much discomfort, fear, or risk of harm is acceptable to ask of a stranger?

To me, it was clear as day that she was asking how much discomfort, fear or risk of harm it's reasonable to ask "ordinary" females like your mum and gran to accept in order to accommodate the pushy demands of males bearing newfangled identities. Yet you automatically reversed the parties, making it seem like in today's new world males who make gender identity claims are the ones being asked to withstand discomfort, fear and risk of bodily and emotional harm for he benefit of others - be they strangers, acquaintances, work colleagues, neighbors, classmates, teachers, team mates and others encountered in the world.

Take the situation with Lia Thomas in the locker and change rooms used by the Penn women's swims team, for example. Some press reports say that female swim team members allege that Lia doesn't take care to keep Lia's penis and testicles covered up in the locker room, and this is distressing to Lia's female teammates. The female teammates have complained to the coach and the administration about Lia's behavior, but have been told to STFU because Lia is a member of the new sacred caste.

Similarly, when the Wi Spa indecent exposure occurred, TRAs said that the women and little girl who were distressed by the sight of a male with a semi-erect penis naked in the female section were at once prudes for being bothered by seeing a stranger's male genitals in the women-only section and perverts for not averting their eyes. Laurie Penny went so far as to criticize the little girl and her family in the case, saying she the little girl was rude - if she had been raised properly, she would have learned it's impolite to look at other people's genitals and would simply have averted her eyes. Because "see no evil..."

Or what about hospitals and health services? If an immobilized very ill and/or elderly woman, or very young girl with severe disabilities, confined to bed or a wheelchair in a care home or hospital expresses alarm, horror even, and balks against being bathed, dressed or receiving intimate care from a male who claims to identify as trans or as gender nonconforming like Alok Vaid-Menon or Danielle Muscato, do you think she is being hateful and is guilty of harassing and and causing harm to the male?

The present-day view that "trans rights" gives males who claim to "identify as" trans or GNC free rein to pretty much do as they please in all sorts of contexts means girls and women are now expected to put up with indecent exposure, sexual harassment, fear and intimidation from males wherever we go - all for the benefit of mostly male gender identity ideologues, and all to the detriment of us "ordinary" women and our children. I'm saddened to see that in your assessment, our feelings and our safety don't seem to factor in at all.