Boys and girls learn differently?

I think it's probably a spectrum where groups are scattered across it, but some concentrations of sex groups are visible? So maybe the highly verbal group will predictably tend to be girl heavy, and the highly active group will predictably tend to be boy heavy? What effect social conditioning has on creating those groups and what is innate biologically is very much up for debate. What effect ingrained sexism has on supporting behaviour in boys that aren't allowed in girls is also up for debate.

I once challenged my kids' primary school that every topic, every book, was heavily 'boy friendly' (masculine stereotypes). I asked when the girls got a look in? I was told that while the girls would pay attention/put up with and work on any topic or book, the boys were too difficult to engage if it wasn't very typically 'boy' based. Where do you even start with that?

Any differences in learning styles would be statistical in any case so dividing the class into boys and girls to teach them differently would be moronic.

Treat kids - and adults for that matter - as individuals, not exemplars of some class.

I do computer coding and at an event one of the well-meaning guys there told me about how he had devised some classes incorporating 'girl topics' such as ballet so as to try to get the girls interested. I bloody hated ballet which I was forced to go to. Surely it's best just to respond to what works for kids on an individual level rather than making assumptions about what will work for them based upon what's between their legs.

Sounds like generalisations are likely to be made. MRA's blame girls' higher achievements in school on coursework being given more than exams because girls are supposedly delicate flowers who can't handle the pressure of exams. I don't have kids so I can't comment on what kids do in school now, but I imagine they are doing a combination of exams and coursework anyway, as when I was in school. The job of the teacher, as it has always been, is to try to incorporate different styles of learning so that all kids can be engaged, I shouldn't think gender sterotyping of supposed female and male styles of learning are required for that. In my experience of teaching though (adults) men are more likely to be over-confident and women under-confident in their own abilities, but that's again socialisation rather than a learning style.

It's definitely still taught in college (especially in psych departments) that "even preschool girls and boys' behavior varies". The impression is left to students - or sometimes given directly that this is biological/innate as opposed to socialized (because research on the extent of gendered socialization of toddlers is conveniently omitted). Many of these students go on to become preschool educators and bring their impressions with them.

Regardless though, even if it's 100% socialized, I do think it is worthwhile to consider meeting children where they are at, at least to an extent. That is, if a particular child has been socialized to learn in an active, physical way, whereas another child has been socialized to sit quietly and listen, we may be able to accomodate both children's needs, and meanwhile teach children that different ways of learning/being are OK (as long as they do not harm others / prevent others' learning).

One would hope that whoever is running this thing will take pains to point out that these are not innate differences...

You are always going to get exceptions though, so it's probably better for teachers to be aware of different learning styles and tailor approaches for.individuals instead of assuming that all girls and boys learn in the different same way.

Yes any learning differences are a consequence of socialisation.

They don’t actually learn differently, but different approaches may be needed due to conditioning into gender roles.