L’esprit n’a Point de Sexe - 'The Mind Has No Sex'

'L’esprit n’a point de sexe’. This was what the French philosopher Pouillan de la Barre controversially declared in his 1673 work De L'égalité – ‘The mind has no sex’. He expanded by arguing that ‘our most accurate anatomical investigations do not uncover any difference between men and women in this part of the body [the head]' and that 'the brain of women is exactly like ours.' Needless to say, de la Barre’s arguments in support of the intellectual equality of women were shunned, with contemporaries preferring instead to perpetuate the classical and religious dogma of a gendered brain. Their purpose, according to neuroscientist Gina Rippon in The Gendered Brain, was to offer scientific backing to the patriarchal structures that underpinned all areas of society. This belief in a dimorphic brain persisted into the modern day, continuing through the forgotten fields of craniology and phrenology, and even within certain circles of neuroscience, despite advances in neuroimaging. 

Its impact can also be seen within education, and as we prepare for our staggered transition toward co-education in September 2026, I have been struck by the outdated myths about girls’ and boys’ learning that have become entrenched within the wider pedagogical literature. Suggestions that overly anxious girls prefer writing in pencil or that boisterous boys perform better in competitive classroom environments are widespread, yet they reflect the biases and agendas of a different era. This is why we must continue to pursue an evidence-informed approach towards this change in our provision; any interventions must be grounded in research, so that outdated and inaccurate myths surrounding teaching and learning do not continue to shape our teaching practice.

 Empty heading

The Male and Female Brain

All brains are different, just as all humans are different. As such, while there may be neurological patterns within large groups of males and females, these are only noticeable at the extreme ends of the societal bell curve, rather than in the middle, where most people cluster. In fact, there are as many differences within the sexes as there are between them, due to the role that the environment and our behaviours play in changing our neural networks. This neuroplasticity ensures that two similar brains at birth do not resemble one another after even a few years of cognitive development. Diane Halpern, former president of the American Psychological Association, put it best in explaining that ‘the role of culture is not zero. The role of biology is not zero.’ Our brains are a product of both nature and nurture, as is everything else that makes us human.
 

Figure 1: Adolescent brain development, focusing on the prefrontal cortex

One example of this concerns the adolescent brain, which shifts from impulse to thoughtfulness as children move through puberty. In girls, this often begins between the ages of nine and fourteen, one to two years before boys. The pathways between the parts of the brain that regulate emotion (known as the medial prefrontal cortex) begin to strengthen, allowing teenagers to slow down and even override their emotional and impulsive responses. This neurological head start in girls could lead teachers to believe that they are naturally better behaved than boys, as they can better suppress the urge to throw an object across the classroom or shout out an answer. However, there is significant overlap between the onset of puberty in both sexes, and, as mentioned previously, our learned behaviours can train and reshape the brain. Therefore, a teenage boy who has practised reflective strategies through clear routines may, in fact, develop stronger pathways within this area of the brain more quickly than a teenage girl who has not. 

As teachers, we cannot assume that pupils will be at a particular stage in their development based solely on their sex, nor can we assume that boys and girls will be better or worse at something because of preconceived notions of a gendered brain. We must have high expectations of all pupils and support each of them in becoming independent, reflective, and capable learners.

Figure 2: Average Attainment 8 score by ethnicity and gender (DfE, 2024)

Past research on the gendered brain has another flaw – it is often whitewashed, neurotypical, and classist – based on an assumption that all girls and boys have the same background and will therefore learn in the same way. As educators, we know this is not true, yet we still see sweeping judgements and interventions based on the simplified categories of ‘boys’ and ‘girls’. GCSE and A Level data, for example, are often broken down to identify the academic differences between the sexes, but how often do schools break this down even further? Figure 2, for example, shows the significant role played by ethnicity in pupil outcomes at GCSE, arguably outweighing the role played by sex alone. On average, we see girls of Chinese ethnicity outperforming boys of all backgrounds, but to varying degrees, yet a British Indian boy is likely to perform better at GCSE than girls from almost all other ethnic groups. Similar differences can be seen when considering SEND, socio-economic background, and UK region – each has an arguably greater role in determining academic performance than biological sex. 

Schools must therefore reflect on their own specific context when exploring potential gaps between the two sexes, instead of this idea of a gendered brain; they should also be mindful of one-size-fits-all interventions. While it is useful to learn from others, either via blog posts, action research reports, or school visits, we need to recognise that the social makeup of every school is unique. Likewise, although attainment data can be a valuable tool in creating and monitoring interventions, schools must look beyond this, to the individuals behind the data, to see the full picture.

Differences in Girls’ and Boys’ Learning

Yet, it would be foolish for schools to completely ignore possible gendered trends within education, due to an overcommitment to gender blindness or because the debate between nature and nurture has not been reconciled. Regardless of whether they are biological, societal, or both, national data reveals some significant differences between boys and girls that we must be aware of; in particular, the prevalence and type of mental health issues, as well as differences in SEND experiences. For example, NHS data reveals that although rates of mental disorder were similar for 8 to 16-year-olds, regardless of sex, rates were twice as high for 17 to 25-year-old women as young men. There were also more pronounced gender differences for specific conditions, such as eating disorders, identified in 12.5% of 17 to 19-year-olds, but with rates four times higher in young women (20.8%) than young men (5.1%) (NHS, 2023). Meanwhile, in all age categories for children and young people, young men are more likely to take their own lives than young women; between the ages of 15-24, male suicides were three times more common than female suicides (532 vs 182; ONS, 2021). Regarding SEND, boys are more likely to have identified special educational needs than girls; in January 2023, 22% of boys had identified SEN, compared to 12% of girls, while 6% of boys had Education, Health and Care (EHC) plans, suggesting more complex special educational needs, compared to 2% of girls (Gov, 2024). Clearly, these disparities between the sexes exist, and targeted interventions based on sex are sometimes necessary, particularly in pastoral care. However, schools should always maintain an awareness of the exceptions who could defy these national trends, rather than simply relying on general stereotypes of who may be struggling and why.

Gender Socialisation

‘While there is nothing inherently wrong with behaving in a gendered manner, stereotypical male or female behaviour may potentially be problematic if children and young people believe that their opportunities in life are limited because of preconceived notions regarding gender.’
(Education Scotland, 2019).

This statement, taken from a literature review by Education Scotland, neatly outlines the fine balance that schools must strike to support the young people in their care. Unfortunately, we cannot completely reverse the gender socialisation that has encouraged the expected behaviours, career aspirations, and attitudes aligned with the sex of our pupils when they enter our classrooms. These are shaped from a young age by the biases of parents, former teachers, and the media. The fact that girls outperform and outnumber boys in literacy-based tasks and subjects, while boys outperform and outnumber girls in mathematical sciences, is a challenging imbalance to reconcile; their skills and mindsets have developed through conditioning from a young age, such as through construction toys and puzzles for boys, and books or drawing for girls. However, gender, or indeed any protected characteristic, should not be a barrier for young people to fulfil their potential, nor should it provide a predestined route towards a particular future. We must tailor our provision to the needs of every pupil in the classroom, striving to widen their horizons regardless of their gender, social background or ethnicity. If we enter the classroom with preconceived biases or simply accept that previous gender socialisation cannot be reversed, then we have already failed at the first hurdle. As Harry, our Teaching & Learning Prefect, comments:

‘I will admit that there does seem to be a noticeable tendency for girls and boys to pursue slightly different subjects. I think this is an underlying societal issue, whereby girls are more likely to be drawn to the arts and humanities not by active discouragement, but rather a passive social norm. Solving this issue will not be quick or easy, but this deeply embedded stereotype can be changed by educating the general public, parents and students about it.’

Preparing for Co-Education

As we prepare for co-education, we must all reflect on our own biases and potential misconceptions regarding this issue. Our mindsets on gender and education are shaped by our own school experiences, our previous workplaces, and our own children; however, experience does not always equate to expertise. We must recognise that everyone holds some gender biases, but we can reduce their impact on teaching and learning if we reflect honestly on them; taking an evidence-informed approach will also help us separate fact from opinion. This slow, reasoned thinking will prevent interventions that perpetuate stereotypes and/or breach equality laws, such as rushing to create girls-only spaces or overhauling the curriculum to offer subjects that ‘girls want to study’.

Within the classroom, there will be minimal transition needed for us to move to co-education, as we already treat our pupils as individuals, regardless of their sex, race, social class, or SEND requirements. We have also delivered coeducational teaching in the Sixth Form for many years, and to quote Harry again, ‘the integration of boys and girls here is swift and friendly.' Familiar routines, positive relationships, and hands-down questioning will continue to create the psychological safety that ensures all voices are heard, while ‘calling in’ and ‘calling out’ unwanted behaviours help to maintain respectful communications; these are strategies that we have been employing for years. We have also worked hard to create a diverse, forward-thinking, and relevant curriculum that challenges all pupils, regardless of their sex, ethnicity, SEND needs, or otherwise. As such, we should continue to deliver this learning experience where each pupil can see themselves and who they could be, rather than who they should be. However, there may be some areas of our practice where tailored interventions are needed to reverse the societal stereotypes that creep into schools; for example, false perceptions of girls in STEM or boys in the creative arts and humanities. Here, we may need to take positive action to promote equity among the sexes, rather than just equality; this could include peer-mentoring from our Sixth Form female scientists or creating displays to promote boys’ reading.

Therefore, while De la Barre’s assertion that ‘the mind has no sex’ may have been dismissed in the 17th century, its relevance endures. As educators, we must continue to challenge the remnants of gendered thinking in our classrooms - not by ignoring difference, but by understanding it through the lens of evidence, context, and empathy.

The full literature review that was conducted as part of our staggered transition to coeducation can be found here:

Learning & Gender: Literature Review (Sept 2025)

This will be updated throughout 2025/6 to include sections focused on pastoral care and SEND.