Your headline quote was about her personal politic when the substantive issue was an employer who failed to provide single sex.
I read that as an agenda.
•Clearly the employer chose to remove the female employees access to a single sex space where that staff member had a contractual obligation to remove clothing in a designated area within their place of employment. Which was an unagreed change to the terms and conditions of her contract.
•The employer chose to not to provide a third mixed sex space and the male employee did not negotiate with managemet for that provision rather chose to enter a space where he knew female staff would be undressing.
•Its a high profile case because the employer chose not to provide a third mixed sex space and the male employee chose to apply to the court to be a direct party to the case.
•The employer was clearly not trying to find a solution as no third mixed sex space was provided.
•This is not a side nor party politics, there are three parties involved, an employer who chose not to provide a third mixed sex space and changed a (rather important) term of an employees contract, an employee who wants a single sex changing room per her agreed contract and a male employee who used a changing space where he knew females would be undressing ( per your example immeditally excluding any muslim employee with regular prayer breaks from the space) and he knew he had not obtained their consent to changing beside a male.
•Nitpicking the provision of work space where an employment contract has a specific performance clause is kind of important if the employer can sack the employee when the employer created the breach condition. (Most people would call that a basic employment right)
• the case is about the action and/or inaction of the employer and if they acted within the law