In recent decades, several countries have made efforts to close the historic gender gap in physics through curricular reforms. Research indicates that while the acute underrepresentation of females in physics courses and related careers is linked to a number of interlaced social, contextual and motivational factors, the personal relevance of physics curricula is important. Some researchers argue that physics has been historically perceived as a "masculine" domain which operates through contexts that are unfamiliar to females. Introduction of a "girl-friendly" physics curriculum is one of the prominent measures employed to mitigate this concern, with researchers arguing that a context-based/humanistic physics curriculum will improve gender inclusivity and thereby increase females' motivation to learn physics. However, this approach has been criticised as a "feminisation" of the physics curriculum. This paper uses a mixed-methods approach underpinned by expectancy-value theory, to analyse 247 students' perceptions of an Australian senior secondary physics curriculum and investigates the claim that including "female-friendly" topics will make physics more appealing to females. Findings suggest that while most students found their physics curriculum interesting and personally relevant, neither females nor males found the "feminine" topics particularly appealing. Both male and female students also found there was a lack of mathematical applications, and they identified descriptive topics, such as those addressing social and historical contexts, as uninteresting and irrelevant in a physics curriculum. This paper concludes that gender was non-significant in student perceptions of a senior secondary physics curriculum.