After Pushing Anti-Trans Laws to ‘Protect Women’s Sports’, Project 2025’s Heritage Foundation Now Wants Women’s Sports Gone to ‘Assist Fertility’

Turns out it was about women’s sports all along—if getting rid of women's sports counts, that is.

Scott Yenor speaks at the 2021 National Conservatism Conference

Last week, the Heritage Foundation, the right-wing think tank behind Project 2025, published a report titled “Title IX’s Failed Experiment: Why Accommodating Sex Differences Beats Engineered Parity.” As its title suggests, the report—which came only days after the Supreme Court upheld laws banning trans women from women’s sports—takes aim at Title IX, the federal civil rights law that bars sex discrimination in schools receiving federal funds and was directly responsible for the creation of women’s sports programs in K-12 schools.

Its author, Heritage Foundation senior research fellow and Boise State University political science professor Scott Yenor, chooses to introduce the topic in a familiar way: transphobia. Here, he opens with a nod to the right-wing conspiracy theories surrounding Imane Khelif, writing that “in 2024, a Tunisian man defeated a Chinese woman for the Olympic women’s boxing gold medal.” Already, he gets the facts wrong: Imane Khelif is Algerian, and she isn’t transgender, but regardless, he presses on and uses Khelif to call for laws that “define and uphold the physical differences between men and women.”

However, Yenor is merely using the topic of trans athletes—one that right-wing groups have manufactured as a way to get many Americans comfortable with discriminatory policies—as a springboard for his true target: women’s sports, and more specifically, “the deeper feminist settlement that has governed athletics for decades.” This feminism, he writes, aimed to make women “more independent and even dominant and less deferential and less oriented toward motherhood and traditional female graces,” and as a result, “Title IX evolved from a seemingly modest anti-discrimination statute into a powerful engine of feminist social engineering, complete with proportionality mandates.”

His central argument is simple: Title IX has created “a prejudice in favor of a male-normed competitive model for women’s sports and a prejudice against men’s non-revenue programs,” and these prejudices “rest on [the] false premise that differences in competitiveness and interest between the sexes are stereotypes to be engineered away.” As he clarifies later, he believes that women, when compared to men, are naturally less ‘aggressive, assertive, and dominant’ and less interested in sports, and therefore, giving men more sporting opportunities isn’t discriminatory. Rather, according to Yenor, the discrimination lies in giving women equality, as Title IX’s mandates of equal spending and parity in competitive opportunity meant “colleges learned that the safest (and often cheapest) path to compliance was cutting men’s non-revenue programs rather than adding women’s teams or controlling costs in football and men’s basketball.”

Interestingly, his entire argument essentially reverses the rhetoric that Republicans have employed when banning trans athletes. There, they argue that trans athletes should get fewer opportunities because they are more competitive and aggressive and that every trans woman who wants to compete is unfairly taking an opportunity away from a cis woman. But here, it’s now cis women who should get fewer opportunities for being less competitive and aggressive and that every cis woman who wants to compete is unfairly taking an opportunity away from a man.

And the irony continues Yenor takes issue with the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Virginia, a 1996 landmark case that struck down policies barring women from US military schools, for ‘furthering the war on stereotypes.’ Meanwhile, that ruling—and its finding that there are “inherent differences between men and women”—has been used to support anti-trans laws going back to the very first line of the very first anti-trans sports law in the US, Idaho House Bill 500 (2020).

Nevertheless, to account for these purported differences between genders, Yenor proposes that Title IX should instead ‘accommodate nature’ by doing away with many competitive women’s sporting programs and instead “supporting a wide range of non-competitive and lower-intensity activities.” And in this final section, he writes the following:

“History and the nature-denying extremism of today’s Title IX enforcement compel us to consider basic questions: What goods do women themselves get from sports and physical activity? What goods do men get? What goods does society derive from women’s participation? From male participation? Podiums, scholarships, or the cultivation of a conquering spirit are hardly the main concerns for most female athletes. Much less of a concern is having a career in professional sports.”

As for the ‘goods’ in question, Yenor is unequivocal: children. In fact, he spends two-thirds of his answer to these questions on fertility alone:

“Of course, many women enjoy the thrill of competition, as the joy on faces of victorious female athletes shows. Women also benefit from activities that build health, good habits, vigor, bodily toughness, grace, confidence, social connection of teamwork, and beauty. Moderate exercise supports fertility and mental well-being far more reliably than does the high-intensity, elite model of sports, which, as science shows, produces Relative Energy Deficiency in Sport (RED-S) and elevated rates of menstrual disruption in many top-notch female athletes. Between 26 percent and nearly 50 percent of women who exercise intensely stopped having regular menstrual cycles according to several studies. As one recent review of the literature holds, “evidence demonstrates higher rates of menstrual disturbance in elite athletes.” High-intensity exercise increases infertility; moderate exercise assists fertility more than any other approach to exercise assists it.”

Through this paragraph, Yenor reveals his hand—as well as the fact that the rest of the reasoning he presents may very well be entirely ad hoc. After all, according to his bio on the Heritage Foundation’s page, Yenor “writes primarily on the family.” Quotes from other conservative figures about him that are listed on the page characterize him as “a student of the hostile forces of feminism and liberals that rip the family apart or prevent families from forming” and as “one of the leading pro-family intellectuals in the country.”

Title IX and college sports policy should therefore sit comfortably outside of his area of expertise—unless, of course, he believes this issue concerns family policy. Viewing the report through this lens, his emphasis on replacing the ‘high-intensity, elite model of sports’ with opportunities that promote ‘moderate exercise’ (which he defines as including “group fitness classes, dance, yoga, recreational intramurals, hiking clubs, and the like”) starts to make more sense, as do his repeated references to the idea that competitive sports make women “less oriented towards motherhood” that are present throughout the report.

As Yenor’s report shows, right-wing attacks on women’s participation in sports will not remain limited to trans women for much longer. That discourse, ostensibly about ‘fairness’ and ‘safety,’ has served to normalize the idea that laws can and should be passed that regulate who qualifies as a woman and what opportunities she has access to. Now, armed with a recent victory at the Supreme Court that upheld those laws, men like Scott Yenor are looking to cash in.

Will America’s women let them?