No surprise.
And this is why the origins of privacy legislation are rooted in women's objections to the way in which their photographs were used in the early days of photography. (Quoting from this thread.)
I've been reading a history of privacy legislation wrt photography (Jessica Lake: The Face that Launched a Thousand Lawsuits). A lot of it is grounded in the actions of courageous women who could only fight the law within its language. And that language did not recognise them as citizens and that, to this day, affects sex-based differences in the notion of privacy.
I very much want to produce 2 pages from the book but it feels over the top so I'll restrict myself to this. (The relevant context is the splendid Abigail Roberson and her NYT open letter to Chief Justice Parker. See https://harvardpress.typepad.com/hup_publicity/2011/08/who-owns-your-face.html )
Here was a twenty-two year old woman challenging the former chief justice of New York and possible future president by advancing a premise of twentieth-century feminist legal theory, that gender identification defines the structure of law. Roberson could see that Chief Justice Parker's inability to identify with her meant he could not understand or empathize with her plight, which led to his unwillingness to provide her with a remedy. Her argument supports the proposition that the law privileges the interests of those who create and enforce it. As feminist legal scholar Regina Graycar has noted in "The Gender of Judgments": "Because of the long-standing exclusion of women from law, the substantive legal doctrines we use on a day-to-day basis were developed by men, with their problems and concerns in mind, and reflect men's perspectives on the world." Roberson lost her case due to the inability of the common law to recognize her gendered grievance as legitimate.
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4932805-the-language-of-law-and-how-it-restricted-remedies-for-womens-concerns
NB: Parker went on to complain about the invasion of privacy for himself and his family when he ran for Democratic candidacy for President. Roberson published an open letter:
“I am forced to the conclusion,” she needled, “that this incident well illustrates the truth of the old saying that it makes a lot of difference whose ox is gored.”