I'd feel a lot less sympathy for him if others hadn't been actively allowing/enabling (rather than simply talking about) the segregation of men and women at, for example, their universities (albeit at events** staged there, not ones part of the curriculum***); as far as I can tell, none of these people have paid any penalty whatsoever for their disgraceful behaviour. (The same goes for those****, at the organisation "Universities UK" (UUK), whose guidance supported such segregation.) And I can't help feeling that they -- as administrators, not Nobel laureates -- would be eminently more replaceable if they were to be encouraged to resign (as they should have been).
** - Specifically academic meetings or in lectures open to the public. (Note that UK Equality law permits gender segregation in premises that are permanently or temporarily being used for the purposes of an organised religion where its doctrines require it, but these were not the subject of the scandal.)
*** - As far as I know, that is.
**** - The chief executive of UUK, Nicola Dandridge, is still in place. UUK had to change its guidance after EHRC (Equality and Human Rights Commission) chief executive Mark Hammond said it was not permissible under the law for universities to segregate by gender in academic meetings. (Perhaps UUK should have waited for a ruling before putting out its original guidance.) I note that Nicola Dandridge was, before taking up her role at UUK, Chief Executive of Equality Challenge Unit (ECU) who promote the equality and diversity for staff and students in higher education across all four nations of the UK, and in colleges in Scotland. (As they say: "You couldn't make this up.")