Dyslexia, Sex Differences, and the Brain Continuum: What Research Got Wrong

Gender has more to do with dyslexia than just the representation ratio of 4:1 (men to women). I want to introduce a different concept to think about when discussing male and female brains: we do not have a male brain and a female brain. What we do have is a continuum between the two aspects of male- and female-like brains. Moreover, at the other end, we have a more feminine-presenting brain. When we are born with our external sexual differences (being represented as either a female or male, that does not mean that our brain structure and processing style were aligned with those external genitalia.

If we honestly think about everyone we know, we will most likely be able to come up with examples of men who think and process the world more like a woman. Moreover, we know that some females present more like a masculine brain. 

However, in psychology, research examines gender classification and external sexual representation when discussing participants. Within the study of dyslexia, it is common to hear that it is 4:1 (four males for every one female) who present with dyslexia. However, if we investigate the history of psychology, it regularly showcases that women are misrepresented not only as research participants but also in the results (Jastrzębska & Błażek, 2022). 

I have an issue with many of the websites documented and regularly quoted, as many, if not all, never disclose their sources, and if you follow the trail of information, you will find they are all quoting each other.  When we look at the ratio of 4:1 and its origins, we find that it stems from a statistic published in the 1970s. 

To this day, we are still regularly quoting information from 50 years ago. What is also interesting to know is that in the 1970s, when this data comes from, women were not even regularly included in psychological research, never mind understanding how dyslexia may present for those with a female-like brain. Females and minorities were included in psychological research only in 1989, and allowing females to participate was not until 1993. Over 20 years after our statistic of 4:1, women were still not being included in psychological research. Do not get excited, though, because these dates do not mean that women were being studied for dyslexia. 

Between 2009 and 2019, only 19% of those studies even looked at sex differences (Rechlin et al., 2022). Again, this does not mean they are even studying dyslexia. How accurate is that four-to-one ratio? What we do know is that female dyslexics present slightly differently due to cultural expectations; as such, they may come across as quieter, less overt in their actions, which might not draw attention to their struggles (Krafnick & Evans, 2019). With new definitions of dyslexia being released, society is recognizing that there is more to this processing style; these definitions still lack the social aspects of dyslexia. Dyslexia is more than just a learning difference. It is more than just reading and writing. It affects and shapes the individual's social network. Are all the comorbidities or other common diagnoses documented to be aligned with dyslexia correct, or are those people just dyslexic because research has not looked beyond the classroom in its understanding? Research is based on the standard definitions of their construct. If the definition is flawed or limited, investigations and understanding do not occur until someone begins to think outside the box. 

There are distinct differences between how males and females in general utilize their brains and process information, so why would we think that dyslexia is any different? However, our statistic of 4:1 is based on the female being compared to and evaluated on the masculine traits associated with dyslexia. Meaning that we are not really aware of the ratio of dyslexia between the genders, and most likely it will be closer than what is commonly quoted. 

The takeaway is that when ratios and old statistics are regularly used as current-day facts, we must understand that this creates misinformation, as everything in science evolves. Moreover, when we start allowing other demographics besides one gender to participate in our understanding, we may find that what we believe to be actual needs to be reevaluated.

References: 

Jastrzębska, J., & Błażek, M. (2022). Questioning gender and sexual identity in the context of self-concept clarity, sense of coherence and value system. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(17), 10643. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191710643

Krafnick, A. J., & Evans, T. M. (2019). Neurobiological sex differences in developmental dyslexia. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2669. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02669

Rechlin, R. K., Splinter, T. F. L., Hodges, T. E., Albert, A. Y., & Galea, L. A. M. (2022). An analysis of neuroscience and psychiatry papers published from 2009 and 2019 outlines opportunities for increasing discovery of sex differences. Nature Communications, 13, 2137. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-29903-3