Gendered Experiences of Specific Learning Difficulties – Dyslexia and Dyspraxia
Introduction
The literature on specific learning difficulties (SpLDs) increasingly recognises gender as a social and structural determinant of learning access and experience. While dyslexia (Roderick and Fawcett, 2010) and dyspraxia (O’Dea et al., 2021) differ in their primary characteristics, phonological and literacy challenges in dyslexia, and motor coordination and organisational difficulties in dyspraxia, they exhibit shared gendered patterns in diagnosis and lived experience (Blank et al., 2019). Approximately 10–12% of children experience dyslexia and 5–6% dyspraxia (Wagner et al., 2020), with reported male prevalence rates of around 3:1 (Lingam et al., 2010). These differences raise questions about whether they reflect biological variation or socially mediated diagnostic bias. A workplace case further illustrates how learners’ trajectories are shaped not only by cognitive factors but by structural and cultural norms within education and care systems (Murthy, 2025; Kessels and Van Houtte, 2022).
Gendered Patterns in Diagnosis and Prevalence
Studies consistently report higher prevalence rates of SpLDs among boys, with male-to-female ratios from 2:1 to 7:1 (Rutter et al., 2004; Lingam et al., 2010). However, Blank et al. (2019) and Quinn and Wagner (2015) argue this disparity primarily reflects referral and diagnostic bias. Boys’ externalising behaviours—such as disruption or overt frustration—attract attention and lead to assessment (Peer and Reid, 2016). Conversely, girls’ difficulties are often internalised, masked by compliance and self-regulation aligned with gendered behavioural expectations (Hawke et al., 2009).
This produces what Alexander-Passe (2015) and Reis et al. (2000) term “protective invisibility”: conformity shields girls from stigma but restricts diagnostic access. From an inclusive education perspective (Ainscow, 2020), such invisibility represents structural rather than individual failure.
Educational norms often equate disruption with need (Stentiford et al., 2023), privileging male-coded expressions of difficulty. Diagnostic frameworks built on predominantly male samples (Montgomery, 2019) reinforce androcentric assumptions that obscure female presentations. Consequently, gendered recognition patterns create both social barriers, rooted in bias and expectation, and learning barriers through delayed or inappropriate intervention.