I concur that most people, myself included, would not wish for video cameras of any type, overt or covert, be brought in to locker rooms or any other place where there is an expectation of at least some form of privacy.
I am not sure however, that a global public ban on the use of smart glasses, whether enacted by one (or more) countr(y/ies) law and/or by social conscience (of which Meta's smart glasses are but one in a sea of many that are/will be produced by many manufacturers in many countries, present and future) is the right answer...
The argument you present is not persuasive.
Your argument is the equivalent of saying that chainsaws (or any other inanimate tool, neither good, nor evil, merely neutral inanimate tools) are "bad" because occasionally they cut off limbs of people, both in cases of accident and by means of a few isolated cases of bad faith actors using them.
It happens from time to time, that's true...
But it's the exception, it's not the rule.
It's the same argument against self-driving cars...
Do they kill people?
Yes, from time to time they do!
But in such relatively low numbers (fractions of a fraction of a percent) relative to the amount of people using them...
It's the exception, it's not the rule.
The same argument could be applied to elevators...
Do they kill people from time to time?
Sure they do!
But again, it's the exception, it's not the rule.
Your argument is an exception, it's a corner-case, it is not the norm, and it is not how the majority of most lawful, responsible individuals in society act.
It is not how you would act, and it is not how I would act.
It is not how most responsible people would act.
In short, it is not persuasive.
Now, I don't mean to offend you in any way by saying that. Certainly you are free to attempt to persuade as many people as you wish of your viewpoint. You could seek political office and with enough political support, perhaps you could get your viewpoint enacted into Law.
And certainly I and millions of others would respect such Laws if you did get them enacted, even though I currently do not own a pair of smartglasses, produced by Meta or any other company, and I certainly would not take them into a Men's locker room with me if I did own a pair!
But you see, as far as your central argument goes, I can't (and it may be just me!) distinguish it from any other argument of the form
Neutral inanimate object or tool X is "bad" (we need laws/bans/broad social disapproval, etc.), because it enables bad faith actors Y (who are exceptions, corner-cases, outliers, not the norm of society) to engage in illegal/immoral/anti-social/unethical/unlawful action Z.
You see I've heard that same argument over and over and over again.
Your argument is an example, a specific case of that pattern.
And that pattern, because I have heard it over and over (and over!) again, is simply not persuasive.
This being said, you're entitled to your viewpoint, and you're entitled to seek any political or social action you feel may help that viewpoint!
I will not stand in your way!
But, at least at the present moment, I individually am not persuaded...