This is badly worded and is being misunderstood.
This is a legal ruling, which was made in response to the arguments made by the plaintiffs which cited specific statutes which were being violated. The claim was that the statutes protected their privacy, the judge said that actually that statute said they had no right to visual privacy, only physical privacy I.e not to be touched. The original statute was a case for female strip searches.
So, he didn’t say the policy was ok and women are allowed to be put in that position, he was saying the specific law cited by the plaintiff didn’t cover this situation.
He couldn’t make any other ruling as the law doesn’t allow him to. He ruled that several parts of the case can go to the next step of the process where he said “The “it would not shock” him if the 7th Circuit or Supreme Court “one day recognizes the right to bodily privacy” as the plaintiffs want, but until then, he does not have the right to “expand the substantive rights protected by the Due Process Clause.”
It’s a bit like the supervisor not being able to offer a discount, they have to call a manager.
It’s also worth noting a big part of this case is the religious freedom of the plaintiffs not to undress in front of a man. That’s going forward too. Not sure whether that’s helpful or not because it surely wouldn’t help if the only argument against this was on the grounds of religion.
The piece notes the students arguing against this have been ostracised by many of their peers, so it seems there are some who don’t have a problem with the policy and that why these girls chose not to take up the offer of alternative facilities. Frankly, it would seem better if everyone sat down to find a solution which helps them all which I’m sure can be done.
Back in the day, our school had some communal changing rooms because there was a big imbalance of girls v boys and not enough single sex accommodation. The rules were that outside of the cubicles, you had to be fully clothed. Seems like a good solution to me.