Psychosocial Dimensions of Gendered Experience
Gender also mediates the emotional and relational dimensions of SpLDs. Girls with dyslexia often experience “hidden distress,” marked by perfectionism, anxiety, and avoidance (Alexander-Passe, 2015). Girls with dyspraxia report social isolation and low self-esteem linked to organisational or motor challenges (Missiuna et al., 2008). These burdens diminish self-efficacy and engagement (Bandura, 1997), reinforcing academic underperformance.
Kessels and Van Houtte (2022) argue SpLDs are not purely cognitive but relational experiences shaped by social context. Thus, inclusion must incorporate emotionally literate, trauma-informed pedagogies (Humphrey, 2013). Organisationally, mentoring, stress-management workshops, and reflective coaching can enhance emotional well-being and agency. Such practices resonate with Freire’s (1970) critical pedagogy, which frames education as dialogic and empowering.
Theories of inclusion (Ainscow, 2020) and critical pedagogy together reframe learning difficulties as products of systemic inequity rather than individual deficit, demanding relational and cultural transformation in educational institutions.
Structural and Systemic Barriers
Diagnostic inequities reflect broader hierarchies within education that privilege visible, male-coded behaviours over subtle relational indicators (Daniel and Wang, 2023). Feminist scholars describe this as an androcentric epistemology, where male behavioural patterns are treated as normative benchmarks of difficulty (Montgomery, 2019; Murthy, 2025). Consequently, girls who internalise distress or overcompensate become invisible within recognition systems. These systemic barriers are sustained by deficit-based models that frame learners as problems rather than participants in co-constructed learning environments.
Inclusion theorists (Ainscow, 2020; Booth and Ainscow, 2016) advocate for systemic transformation addressing the cultural and political architectures constraining learner agency. Within this framework, gender bias in diagnosis represents not an isolated issue but a manifestation of institutional inequity.
Towards Gender-Sensitive and Inclusive Practice
Reform must embed Universal Design for Learning (UDL) principles, which promote multiple means of representation, engagement, and expression (CAST, 2018). Embedding flexible literacy and motor-support strategies enables accommodation of diverse learning profiles without over-reliance on diagnostic labels. Lynch (2024) and Van Herwegen (2024) advocate repeated screening focused on domain-general abilities, such as executive function, to mitigate gender bias and capture subtle difficulties.
Dynamic assessment approaches considering developmental and contextual variability can further ensure equitable recognition. These strategies depend on professional learning and leadership commitment. Reflective supervision and staff development can challenge unconscious bias and strengthen diagnostic literacy. As Kemmis (2019) asserts, sustainable inclusion requires transforming practice architectures—the cultural, social, and material conditions shaping practitioner behaviour. Embedding collaborative inquiry and reflective dialogue fosters shared accountability for equity.