Professor Simon Baron-Cohen has publicly reversed course on one of the most famous ideas in autism research. On 5 July 2026, he told The Guardian that he regrets using the term "extreme male brain" and no longer thinks it's useful to label brains as "male" or "female." This matters because Baron-Cohen invented and defended this theory for about 30 years.

The timing is noteworthy. Just as he was making this statement, Cambridge University announced a £26 million ($34.5 million gift) from philanthropist Lisa Yang — the largest single donation for autism research in the university's history. The money will create two new research centers under Baron-Cohen's leadership: the K Lisa Yang Centre for Autism Research and a clinical autism center within a future children's hospital.

What the Theory Was — and Why It Went Wrong

The "extreme male brain" theory proposed that autism involves having certain traits commonly seen in males — specifically, a way of thinking that focuses on patterns and systems rather than understanding other people's emotions. This led to a widespread idea in headlines and public conversation that autistic people lack empathy entirely.

But this was a misreading. Baron-Cohen now points out that his research never showed what people thought it did. Autistic people do struggle with one specific kind of empathy: inferring what someone else is thinking or feeling based on their behavior. But they don't necessarily lack affective empathy — the ability to care about someone else's distress. These are two different things, yet the media and public conflated them into a single claim: autistic people don't feel for others. That claim, Baron-Cohen says, is false and damaging to autistic people trying to work, form relationships, and access healthcare.

The theory had another flaw. It built itself on the assumption that male brains and female brains were fundamentally different. But it ran into a problem: studies — including Baron-Cohen's own 2015 research — found that women with autism also scored in the "extreme male" range. If the theory was right, that shouldn't happen. The finding suggested the male/female divide didn't work the way the theory claimed.

Scholars of gender and neurodiversity had raised these concerns for years. They argued that fitting neurological differences onto a male/female binary was both too simple and unfair to autistic women and non-binary people.

What Comes Next

The new funding is changing what research gets done. Along with the donation announcement came preliminary data from over 141,000 people showing that autistic women may face a 71% higher risk of serious heart problems — heart attack, stroke, and related issues — compared with non-autistic women. This data has not yet gone through formal peer review, so these numbers could shift. Large preliminary studies often change substantially once experts examine them closely. Still, the signal is strong enough that it appears to be shaping what the new center will study.

If this heart risk finding holds up after review, it would be significant. Autistic women are often diagnosed much later than autistic men, partly because the original diagnostic criteria were based mostly on how autism shows up in boys. If autistic women truly do face higher cardiovascular risk, doctors and the NHS would need to rethink screening and resource planning.

There's an inconsistency worth noting. Baron-Cohen has said publicly that he no longer supports the "extreme male brain" terminology, yet Cambridge University's official website pages still promote his older research and the EMB theory without any caveats or updates. Universities tend to move slowly on revising public statements, and one interview is not the same as a formal research retraction. But the gap between what Baron-Cohen now says and what the institution still publishes creates a quiet mismatch — one the new center will presumably need to address as it starts recruiting research participants and seeking additional funding.

The bigger picture: the Yang donation creates the space and resources for a different kind of research than before. Instead of studying psychological traits tied to sex differences, the new center will focus on physical health disparities and clinical outcomes. That's a real shift in direction and method. Whether this new research will formally replace the older theory, or simply grow around it, depends on what the evidence shows — a standard that Baron-Cohen has always said should come first.