There are in fact some significant differences between training optimized for men (which is the majority of training available today) and training optimized for women (which is hard to find, and often what you do find isn't well done and contains a bunch of silly stupid stuff that shouldn't be in there).
Note here that I am talking specifically about defensive firearms training -- not about shooting skills in general. As John Farnam points out, a good defensive training school teaches a lot more than just how to pull a trigger. "The best schools are well-rounded," he says. "Our Art embraces an extensive repertoire of psycho-motor skills, verbal skills, and disengagement skills, along with a sound philosophical overlay, all of which must to carefully integrated. Some of the material is dry, but it is still important and must be included."
So:
1) Holster selection.
2) Clothing / concealment issues. (Significant!)
3) Handgun / hand fit. Women tend to (not always, not all, speaking generally of working with groups of women) have smaller hands than men, sometimes significantly so. This being the case, women often show up to class with guns that are ... suboptimal as shooting platforms. Good trainer knows how to work with these tiny guns, and knows how to help students -- whatever their hand size, including small -- find guns more suitable for them to use.
4) Firearm manipulations. Women tend to (not always, not all, speaking generally of working with groups of women) have less upper body strength than men, sometimes significantly so. There are some skillsets -- such as racking the slide -- where the majority of guys and experienced shooters use techniques that are strength-intensive. Women who have limited hand strength or lower upper body strength should have access to a trainer who knows how to teach the less strength-intensive techniques that will work for them.
5) Sociological issues: women are enculturated to respond to (threatened, potential) violence in very different ways than men are. This tends to have some huge implications for what we need to teach students about responding to violence, as each gender's preferred style has both benefits and drawbacks in actual use.
6) Types of violence. Men tend to be the victims (and the participants) in some types of social violence that women generally aren't. Women tend to be the victims of some types of asocial violence that men generally aren't. This has some important implications for mindset and awareness, as well as for avoidance and de-escalation strategies.
7) Optimized skills development. Groups of men tend to respond very differently to certain types of competitive pressure than groups of women do. Smart instructors know how to leverage this different energy to get the best performance from every student. (Important because in a group that contains 9 men and 1 woman, the pressure-push will often be optimized solely for the male students; which works well for women who enjoy being "one of the guys" and treated like one, but tends to work less well for women closer to the center of the bell curve.)
So yeah, there are differences, and there is a value in women's programs. It's just not the be-all, end-all of developing a good set of skills. Far more important to get your training from a solid source who knows how to flex with each group and personalize the training to meet the specific needs of the individual students he or she is working with at the time.
pax,
Kathy