One former studenttold theHerald’s Lucy Carroll that “many parents put their son’s name down on the waitlist from the age of one or two,and they feel they’ve been sold something they never agreed to”.

Changing schools is not an option.

“You can’t just go and sign up to Joey’s or King’s as they are full too,” he continued. He further complained that “there is also no pressure on girls’ schools to go co-ed”.

This is true – but it has less to do with an ideological agenda than with market demand. Increasing numbers of parents wish their boys to go to co-educational high schools,perhaps put off by the reputation for so-called toxic masculinity that clings to some of these boys’ schools,rightly or wrongly. This reputation was obliquely acknowledged by the headmaster of Kings in a recent newsletter.

But while parents of boys increasingly want co-education,many parents of girls still want the option of keeping their girls segregated from boys during school hours.

It is impossible to generalise about why,but thesexualised harassment many girls cop in both public and private co-ed schools,as reported by my colleague Jordan Baker,might play a part.

As a friend of mine put it,the debate over Newington’s move to co-ed is “retro,wealthy and weird”. Some of the commentary is bathed in schadenfreude and resentment at the vast wealth these schools enjoy,while public schools scrape together funds via hard-working P&Cs,no wealthy alumni network to rely on.

It is hard not to raise a cynical eyebrow when someone declares the only thinkable options for boys’ education are Newington,Kings or Joey’s (or Scotch College,or Xavier College,or whatever).

But the Newington conflict is a fascinating study in the emotionality and recalcitrance some men have when it comes to giving up space to women. We have seen similar debates play out when university colleges and private members’ clubs have moved to include women.

It moves me to wonder what the objectors are afraid of,exactly. Sanitary bins in the loos?

The woolly talk of “culture,tradition and heritage” feels like code for something they daren’t say:a loss of privilege,and a generalised fear of a more meritocratic world.

Recently,I attended my high school reunion. I received an excellent (public) education at an all-girls school,and I have returned there a bunch of times as an adult,to talk to current students. Each time I have been delighted by how smart and impressive the girls are.

I have a great affection for my alma mater,but if they wanted to start enrolling cats next year,I wouldn’t consider it any of my business,largely because I believe in freedom.

The rhetoric around private schools – and the justification for the generous funding they receive from taxpayers – focuses on freedom of choice. The argument goes that parents should be free to choose the kind of education they want for their children,and the values imparted to them via that education.

But according to the world-view of the old boys,that freedom only goes one way. The school they choose for their boys is not free to evolve,even if that evolution is necessary for its own survival,a reasoned response to changes in the real world – which is to say,the world outside the walls of the school.

All parents should,of course,have the choice to send their children to a single-sex school. But that’s different to being able to control the school itself.

To tie your adult identity to the school you attended for six years as a teenager seems a strange business;it means you are always casting backwards in your own life,as well as backwards in time,to an era when genders were segregated and social rules were simple.

Or at least,to a time when social rules were simple for you,perhaps because you benefited so disproportionately from them.

Jacqueline Maley is a senior writer and regular columnist.