Written by Justus Schwenzer
Justus Schwenzer (he/him) is a secondary teacher for PE, music, and English. Dedicated to fostering safe and inclusive learning spaces built on openness, belonging, and acceptance, he is passionate about research on equity, diversity, and inclusion in education.
The new school term has begun, and swimming is the new topic in PE. As a new member of staff, I am surprised to learn that our normally mixed-sex lessons are now split into separate “boys” and “girls” classes for swimming. This immediately raises questions for me, and I am curious to hear how my Year 10 students make sense of it.
“Why do you think our school chooses single-sex swimming lessons over the usual mixed-sex PE lessons?”
One of the students is bold enough to share: “Because it makes us feel more comfortable”. Such an honest response, perhaps hesitant, self-conscious, or even a little presumptuous in speaking for everyone.
But this raises the central question of this blog: Does separating students by sex really create comfort for everyone, or does it mask the deeper issues and avoid the tough questions that make PE feel uncomfortable in the first place?
This blog argues that single-sex swimming lessons are not automatically a solution for creating a truly welcoming and supportive learning environment. Instead, creating comfort, trust, and inclusion requires reflective practice that addresses the underlying issues of visibility, vulnerability, and equity in PE.
Is single-sex swimming more “comfortable” because it caters to innate abilities?
PE is, and probably always will be, a particularly gendered space. In this educational setting, bodies are in the spotlight and the centre of attention. A student saying “comfortable” might be pointing to culturally entrenched ideas about gender, such as the expectation that “strong boys” and “delicate girls” engage in activities thought to match their innate abilities. Historical debris of traditional gendered expectations still echoes through PE curricula and teaching practices, even though such narrow ideas of ‘ideal’ bodies are being critically challenged and perceived as outdated.
Is single-sex swimming more “comfortable” because it makes students feel less exposed and vulnerable?
Swimming differs from other curriculum topics due to heightened visibility of the body and a different dress code. The swimming pool represents a space where questions of respectable dress, visibility, and decency are grounded in the historic development of the sport. Interpreting “comfortable” as feeling protected and less vulnerable is therefore not far-fetched. “Girls” may want to feel protected from unwanted looks and the cisgender, heterosexual, sexualised (“male”) gaze. Additionally, mixed-sex PE may create religious distress for students with religious beliefs that emphasise modesty, making single-sex PE feel more “comfortable” for them. But can a safe and non-judgemental atmosphere not be created in mixed-sex swimming through reflective teaching practices?
When underlying beliefs and struggles that contribute to shame and anxiety in the pool are not addressed, opting for single-sex swimming lessons is more of a band-aid solution. Single-sex PE does not replace the work that has to be done to make this setting a safe, body-positive environment without judgement. Students are still together in a group with other people, tempted to compare and contrast their bodies, still trying to navigate puberty, hormones, and bodily changes. The work to support our students and help them feel “comfortable” in their own bodies does not go away.
Who is “us” in single-sex swimming lessons?
The “us” is still often defined as “boys” and “girls”. Single-sex PE creates binary groupings and potentially confines PE into “traditional” forms that reproduce inequitable sets of gendered power relations. What happens to students who cannot or do not want to say whether they should join the “boys” or the “girls”? Landi (2025) gives an example of how queer and trans students (that is how the youth in this study referred to themselves collectively) are marginalised in these moments, their bodies made to sit at a fault line of the system, creating barriers that leave them feeling erased. Students whose bodies fit neatly into the categories of “male” and “female” are privileged by the system. Heteronormativity is encouraged in those moments, creating a shield of invisibility around other sexual and gender identities. Others are left with the burden of accepting an option that does not represent them, potentially leaving them exposed, unprotected, and threatened.
Towards inclusive and welcoming swimming lessons in PE
I am aware that single-sex PE and mixed-sex PE are highly complex issues deeply entrenched in politics, (sporting) culture, religion, and society. The swimming pool tends to amplify particular issues. Despite these challenges, even long-standing practices in PE can benefit from reflection. Supporting all students means creating space for open, critical dialogue across perspectives. So, ask yourself what life lessons we want to teach our students, the type of world we envision for young people to move through, and who is allowed to move freely within it. Addressing the elephant in the pool might just make everybody feel a little bit more “comfortable”.