Dr Ragnar Purje
A new cultural concern on social media has emerged. The media is reporting that teachers are noting shifts in boys’ attitudes, that parents are describing unfamiliar language entering their homes, and that government policymakers are responding with new programmes to counter what is taking place. Much of the public discussion seems to focus on boys as the only recipients of harmful content, and at the same time, as though biology determines behaviour.
From a learning and development perspective, when boys are being told that biology (in the form of the descriptor masculinity) is dangerous, this type of information and presentation has a perilous and extremely serious negative cognitive, emotional and psychological impact on boys (and even society itself).
That is because this type of ideologically directed biological fallacy (which instils fear rather than developing and advancing self-belief, self-efficacy and self-esteem) brings into existence a totally unacceptable (and psychologically problematic) type of thinking that informs and reinforces the deceptive idea in boys that, that, as a result of their (inherent, unchangeable and immutable XY-chromosome male biology), “somehow” boys are “biologically responsible” and have no control over their thoughts and behaviours.
As such, when male biology (described as masculinity) is presented as a problem, this framing must be challenged, because it is not true, it has no universal basis, and it is unethical and immoral.
Males are an immutable XY biological reality. Females are an immutable XX biological reality. This universal biological reality (in all that it entails) results in a male body and brain, and a female body and brain. The immutable biological fact is that sex is a two-category system defined by gamete type.
In The Educator (24 Apr 2026), in an article titled “The rise of the ‘Manosphere’ – and how schools are fighting it,” the following statement is presented: “If the Victorian Government wants all children and young people to live lives free from violence, we must challenge and disrupt traditional gender roles and stereotypes at every age.”
This statement, “We must challenge and disrupt traditional gender roles and stereotypes at every age,” is extremely disturbing and deeply concerning. Its absolutist, interventionist framing implies an institutional right and authority to reshape children’s biological, psychological, and social development; thereby overriding the universality of biology and agency and creating the conditions in which coercive institutional and ideological social influence can emerge.
Those words and policy also raise an extremely serious ethical, moral and social concern. History and research directly inform us that the risk of extremely serious and even life-altering coercive influence will emerge. This was starkly illustrated by the profoundly important Stanley Milgram experiments on obedience to authority.
If a boy, for example, chooses a car to play with, the logical implication of such a policy is that any adult may now believe they are “entitled” or have been given “policy permission” to forcefully interrupt this choice (of a boy choosing to play with a car).
This adult may now also believe they have the entitled right and institutional “policy power” to now forcibly direct this boy towards a different object, such as a doll, not because of his agency, but because of the words: “We must challenge and disrupt traditional gender roles and stereotypes at every age.”
Further to this, it is imperatively important to universally note that violence is not biological. Violence is a choice. Neither biological males nor biological females act violently because of their biological state. Neither male humans nor female humans are mindless biological automatons.
By “automaton,” I refer to a hypothetical organism that acts purely on biological impulse, without having any level of consciousness, intention, reflection, or agency; i.e., a being whose actions are entirely determined by nonconscious, mindless, biologically driven mechanisms, rather than by conscious choice. As noted, neither male humans nor female humans are mindless biological automatons. They are conscious agents in their own right.
When boys (indeed, when anyone in fact) understand themselves as agents (capable of choosing, learning, and directing their own conduct), they step into the ethical and moral of agency and self-directed conscious autonomy.
As such, in terms of learning in schools from Prep to Year 12, the social focus – must, in absolute universal terms – include the ongoing psychological and social development, advancement, and enhancement of self-belief, self-efficacy, self-esteem, self-confidence, self-regulation, and self-management. This self-evidently involves boys being proud and confident to be boys and girls being proud and confident to be girls.
Biology does not negotiate with ideology: the male and female brain emerge from chromosomal (XY and XX), hormonal, and developmental architectures that have always universally shaped cognition, emotion, and behaviour.
As such, the research is unequivocal: self-belief, self-efficacy, self-esteem, self-confidence, self-regulation, self-management, and cognitive behaviour modification place the locus of control squarely within the agency of the individual.
Further to this, Bandura, Branden, Glasser, Manning, Payne, Schunk, Winne, Woolfolk, and Zimmerman all converge on the same uncompromising truth: Self-belief, self-efficacy, self-esteem, self-confidence, self-regulation, and self-management are not psychological or social “luxuries”; they are foundational, irreducible prerequisites of ethical and psychological and moral capacities. i.e., the non‑negotiable processes through which ethical and moral thinking and behaviours develop.
This is why the deliberate cultivation of self-belief, self-efficacy, self-esteem, self-confidence, self-regulation, and self-management across all years of schooling is not merely important but a universal imperative. Without these intrinsic conscious capacities, boys and girls can become, as the media reports, vulnerable to destructive ideological harm.
To safeguard against this is to never initiate the unethical and immoral directive: “We must challenge and disrupt traditional gender roles and stereotypes at every age.”
What must take place instead is an ongoing, open, transparent, healthy, ethical, and moral process of education that continually celebrates boys for who they universally are (biological males) and girls for who they are (biological females). This, in turn, develops, advances, and enhances the intrinsic capacities of self-belief, self-efficacy, self-esteem, self-confidence, self-regulation, and self-management.
This approach protects society and the child’s right to ethical and moral development, and prevents institutions from imposing unethical and immoral ideological policies on humanity. This is the universal foundation upon which an ethical, moral, and healthy society exists.
As Viktor Frankl warned, the greatest danger arises when systems seek to shape human beings according to an ideological image; when this occurs, “man is no longer treated as a person but as a thing.” History shows that once fear and ideology replace autonomy, the outcome is always the same: subjugation.
Dr. Ragnar Purje (PhD; M.Ed.; M.Ed.(Guid.& Couns.); M.Ed.(Lead.&Man.); B.A. (Psych.); B.App.Sc. (P.E.); Grad.Dip.Ed.; Grad.Dip.SportSci.; Grad.Dip.Ex.&SportSci.; Grad.Cert.(Comm.); Grad.Dip.(Health Couns.); Certificate IV in Assess.&Workplace Training) is the author of Responsibility Theory.