Project 25 (formally known as Project 2025 by the Heritage Foundation) does not explicitly call for eliminating all women's sports, but its architects advocate for fundamentally restructuring Title IX to deemphasize equal funding and competitive parity.
The blueprint specifically aims to curtail federal support for reproductive freedoms to prioritize family structure and fertility.
An analysis of these specific proposals reveals the following intentions:
Focus on Women's Sports & Title IX
De-emphasis on Competitive Equality: Key architects, such as Scott Yenor at the Heritage Foundation, argue that Title IX's push for engineered parity in competitive varsity sports harms men's programs. They recommend that the law be rewritten to remove requirements for strict numerical equality between men's and women's collegiate programs.
Re-evaluating the Purpose: Architects have expressed the view that sports promote aggression and independence. They argue that policies should instead cultivate more "feminine graces", prioritizing domestic focus and fertility over high-intensity, competitive athletics.
Focus on "Feminine Graces":
Heritage Foundation fellows and architects of the document, such as Scott Yenor, have criticized women’s sports for allegedly harming "feminine graces" and breeding "aggression," promoting the view that federal policies should instead foster traditional, family-centric gender roles.
Broader Reproductive Policies: While the text does not directly link athletics to fertility rates, Project 2025 does push for pronatalist policies focused on traditional nuclear families. It aims to reshape federal health policy away from broad reproductive rights, replacing them with "fertility awareness" and holistic medicine to encourage pregnancy.
NOTE: "Feminine graces" is a cultural construct, not a natural one. While physical sex differences are biological, the specific behaviors, mannerisms, and aesthetic expectations labeled as "graceful" are shaped by historical, social, and ideological influences rather than hardwired genetics.
Nikki Morris on Facebook:
The argument goes something like this: “Many women enjoy the thrill of competition, as the joy on the faces of victorious female athletes shows. Women also benefit from activities that build health, good habits, vigor, bodily toughness, agility, confidence, social connection, 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...elevated rates of menstrual disruption in many top-notch female athletes."
It gets better: "Feminism 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.”
AI Overview:
Legal experts, civil rights organizations, and sports advocates warn that if these proposals are fully implemented, women’s sports would face severe structural vulnerabilities.
Title IX currently mandates that schools provide athletic scholarships proportional to the participation rates of male and female students. Removing "engineered parity" means universities could drastically cut funding for female scholarships to prioritize high-revenue male programs.
Reduction of Teams and Roster Spots:
Under current rules, schools must maintain a fair balance of athletic opportunities. If the mandate for numerical equality is eliminated, universities would no longer be legally obligated to sustain non-revenue-generating varsity women's programs (such as softball, track, rowing, or gymnastics), leading to team cuts.
I take it you disapprove of the Heritage Foundation's ideas because they would result in a dismantling of the liberal social engineering achieved since the 60s. Their vision of a "civic religion" differs from your own 'woke' version. The one you've been implementing against the prohibitions of the 1st Amendment prohibition against the establishment of religions, theological or secular. The Right's Constitutionally based Civic Religion supports the natural flourishing of many religions. The Left aims at a singular "One". The Unum, not the Pluribus.
ReplyDeleteI disapprove of taking away a girl or a woman's right to Title IX support to pursue her happiness, whether that lies in competing in sports in high school or university or in her choice whether or not to be a mother. The state has no more right to force a girl or woman to be a mother than it has to force a boy or man to be a father.
DeleteYou deliberately, again, changed the subject and missed the point of this post. Like Trump, you make everything posted here about YOUR particular woke worldview. Because YOU fail to understand what you promote is as woke as it gets.
What is more "social engineering" than withdrawing support for girls and women's sports and forcing girls and women to go back to being nothing more than brood mares to ensure Christian nationalist supremacy?
No Liberal/Democrat I know of is against the flourishing of many religions. IT is EXACTLY the far right Christian Nationalist who want America to become a "Christian Nation!" That eliminates other religions' ability to be part of America's religious fabric. I've never heard any Liberal/Democrat suggest that. It is grossly unAmerican to advocate one religion over another, and that's what Project 2025 is about.
You must have blocked your eyes and ears from listening to the MAGAs running the country, because your claims in your comment are bogus.
"Many scholars, civil rights groups, and critics describe Project 2025 as a blueprint to promote Christian nationalist programs. It explicitly calls for a federal government infused with "biblical principles" and a focus on traditional, conservative Christian family structures.
DeleteCritics—including organizations like the Interfaith Alliance—point out that the plan seeks to use state power to achieve its religious aims. Key features of this agenda include:
LGBTQ+ Rights:
Attempting to roll back protections and eliminate LGBTQ+ recognition in the definition of family.
Reproductive Healthcare: Pushing for a federal ban on abortion and severely restricting access to contraception.
Public Education: Promoting school voucher programs to fund private religious education while discouraging teachings related to systemic racism and gender identity.
Federal Operations: Eliminating diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs across federal agencies. While the project's authors frame this as restoring the nation's traditional heritage, opponents argue it violates the separation of church and state and threatens pluralistic democracy. "
"Multiple national polls indicate that a majority of Americans oppose the core policy proposals outlined in Project 2025.
DeleteKey findings include:
Broad Opposition: Majorities of Americans oppose key Project 2025 proposals, such as replacing career government officials with political appointees (68% opposed) and eliminating the Department of Education (64% opposed).
Specific Policies: Restricting access to contraception is opposed by 72% of Americans, while majorities also reject reducing civil rights protections for LGBTQ+ individuals and limiting reproductive health care.
General Unfavorability: Surveys from organizations like Navigator Research found that unfavorable views of the platform significantly outweigh favorable ones across the political spectrum."
I object at the Christian Right's visions for limiting the prospects of women as well. I'm a classical liberal, not a Christian. My daughter's a partner in a law firm. She suffers from no lack of opportunities for advancement other than the ones she places upon herself.
DeleteI have a gay brother and son. I'm not opposed to LGBTQ+ rights. I'm opposed to their abuse of accomodations made to and for women.
DeleteMeden Agan... Nothing too much!
ReplyDeleteMaybe the NFL isn't the best fit for women, or Physics for African-Americans. Disparate impacts be damned!
DeleteProject 2025 is definitely NOT (μηδὲν ἄγαν)! It is fundamentally changing America. For the worse, IMO!
DeleteThe logic is the same. I support Title IX in it's original form. The Biden era "trans" accomodations to the system gamers is a bridge too far at the "too much" end of meden agan.
DeleteJoeCon: Maybe the NFL isn't the best fit for women,
DeleteNo one disputes that, overall, men are physically stronger than women, so no, the NFL isn't the best fit for women. How about enrollment in law and medical schools? That takes brains. Women outnumber men there, where physical superiority isn't necessary, but intellectual superiority is.
JoeCon: "...or Physics for African-Americans. Disparate impacts be damned!
African-American physicists
Considering African-Americans weren't allowed to attend the better financed state universities and colleges in many states in our lifetimes, they've done remarkably well. Also, considering bigots who continue to point out the fact that they're lagging behind due to American racism keeping them from making advances that were always open to America's white population, they've done remarkably well.
And those who do achieve excellence in higher education and scholarship are often devalued and the objects of suspected preference, (see Ketanji Jackson Brown, Barack Obama, Michelle Obama), and obvious morons like Trump, who didn't know what the Declaration of Independence was about, are given a White Pass, because, well they're WHITE, and so, their underachieved successes are accepted!
This is all so obvious to those who can see what's in front of their noses.
However, that eliminates YOU, I'm sorry to say.
No one denies that blacks can achieve ANTHING that whites can. I'm against all barriers to that achievement. What I do contest is making "accommodations" based upon aggregated group disparate impacts. SCotUS has moved recently in the right direction on this. Med Schools should NOT be setting aside quota slots for minorities.
DeleteThose "set-asides" are what disparage the accomplishments of blacks in the public mind.
DeleteMary Bennet, the other Bennet sister, has "prospects" OTHER than "marriage or misery. They have "marriage or careers" of their own.
ReplyDeleteOpportunities... not necessary results.
DeleteIn that particular era in England, women were not allowed to inherit their own fathers' property, only males were allowed. And if there was no male issue, a distant male relative inherited the property when the patriarch passed with no male issue, and that left his female children at the mercy of that relative as to what they'd inherit, vis-a-vis financial and property.
DeleteMaking a good marriage was their ONLY hope to be able to escape spinsterhood or being a low-paid and abused governess. Jane Austen wrote extensively about this in her novels. "Sense and Sensibility is one of the best on this injustice.
"In England, women finally gained the legal right to inherit their fathers' estates and money on equal terms with men through the Administration of Estates Act 1925, which came into effect on January 1, 1926. This landmark legislation abolished the archaic common law rules of primogeniture, which had historically favored male heirs, and finally permitted women to hold and dispose of property on the exact same terms as men>"
I fully support equality of opportunity, including that of inheritance.
DeleteBe a first wave feminist! Recognize that there are actual differences between the sexes, and make fair "accommodations" for them. A women's WNBA is just fine. It doesn't need "trans" players.
ReplyDeleteThey HAVE the NBA.
DeleteThe NBA does not accommodate white men's natural lack of athletism and low Athletic Quotients (AQs). Disparate Impact adjustments are not required. They are not "equity" measures. They are a bridge "too far" in "inclusivity" goals.
DeleteApparently all it (WNBA) needs to become popular and self-sustaining is some kayfabe racial dramas about mean black girls ganging up on weak white girls
DeleteThis will be worked out somehow to enable trans athletes to participate in sports. At this point, I don't know how, but there has to be a way forward. They deserve to be seen.
DeleteI disagree. Male to Female transitioners will ALWAYS dominate women's sports. The reverse shall NEVER be true. So where is the equity? In the opportunities nature originally grants. Not in the 2nd order opportunities created by Title IX.
DeleteIn other words, the F-to-M trans would need "a league of their own" to be seen. And I would find them even more boring to watch than the kayfabe WNBA.
DeleteWe've probably already witnessed many male to female trans athletes, but didn't know about it.
DeleteAlso, I don't think that people care if you're bored or not with watching trans athletes.
They do if they need "paying customers". Let them retain their amateur, and largely unwatched, standing
DeleteI see you didn't like my "trans" comment. Trans in womens sports is a result of the perversion of Title IX's "accomodtaion" of sex differences. 2nd wave demanded equality in results and created incentives to game the system (trans). 3rd wave feminism seeks again acceptance of trans equality. Good luck with that.
ReplyDeleteSomething equitable has to be done to accommodate trans athletes. I don't know what it is, but someone will figure it out. Trans people should be able to pursue their happiness if it means pursuing athletics they love.
DeleteI have a trans relative (female to male) and work on the goat farm with another (female to male) and I see them as worthy human beings who have navigated, in a world that is, on the whole, hostile to them. And they have navigated around many obstacles to be who they've known they are since they were pre-school children. And before anyone was talking about trans people.
It's depressing to watch how my fellow human beings treat people whose lives they cannot and will not understand, so they make those lives even more difficult than is necessary.
Transgender and gender-diverse people have existed throughout human history. While the modern term "transgender" is relatively new, historical records, art, and archaeological evidence show that people have lived across and beyond the gender binary in cultures globally for thousands of years.
And this is true of our gay brothers and sisters, who have always been part of our human family.
I just wish people who are ignorant and fearful would either leave them be to live their lives peacefully.
We need to find ways to allow our trans brothers and sisters to pursue their happiness in competing in sports. As I said, I don't know how that can happen, but I know somehow it will.
Did you ever read Kafka's "Josephine, the Mouse Singer" (or something like that). The lesson was, even if you're good at something, the world doesn't need to accommodate your talents AND PAY YOU FOR THEM. You just need to be satisfied in being an UNPAID AMATEUR.
DeleteRemember when "amateur athletics" was a thing? We watched "The Legend of Bagger Vance" again last night.
I want to emphasize what you wrote about college scholarships. Women receive thousands of sports scholarships to college every year across NCAA Division I, Division II, and NAIA programs. How many women have benefited from this who would never had the money to attend college? According to AI "hundreds of thousands of women have benefited from sports scholarships since the passage of Title IX in 1972." Is this an underhanded way to keep women from attending college?
ReplyDelete"Is this an underhanded way to keep women from attending college?"
DeleteGood question.
Project 2025 is definitely promoting the idea of girls and women foregoing higher education and becoming breeders of children (preferably white and Christian ones).
One way of enforcing this is to take away their ability to afford higher education. So, yeah. That tracks.
Sports scholarships were once the "underhanded way" for negroes to attend good schools and colleges.
Deleteps - Too many "stupid people" have already graduated college. Not everyone should go. We need a "limited" number of elites. College attendance used to be the benchmark. Too many elites create a competition amongst them for a limited number of high positions, resulting in a counter-elite. The game of musical chairs results in "wicked" gate-keeping. We saw that in the "woke" gates for professional managerial class (DEI).
Does every position in every occupation require a WNBA (professional) or Title IX (amateur) accommodation? Maybe in Michelle Obama's Princeton thesis "separate but equal" America. But not this one.
DeleteThe original "screening tool" for entry into elite status colleges was the SAT. We only wanted the SMARTEST people to enter. What became of that?
Delete^^Among the ones who probably shouldn't have gone.^^
DeleteThe world didn't need Merchant Seamen? You probably know that 17 American's have died in the Iran war. Did you know that over 50 merchant seaman have, as well? I doubt it.
DeleteWell, when you start an unjustified illegal war in support of Zionist BS you get what you sowed.
DeleteThe SAT was originally intended as a sinngular meritocratic-based "gate" to eliteness. DEI was intended as a ideology-race based "Gate" to eliteness. The latter served the dual causes of the Democratic Party's "race-essentialism" as well as serving as a vehicle for political patronage. That is why it had to end.
ReplyDeleteThe Gatekeepers will always control.
ReplyDeleteThoroughly enjoy watching Shaw sparing (debating) with the white supremacist fascist authoritarian Christian Nationalist and Zionist views if minu man and Joe con.....
ReplyDeleteIt of course is no contest, as the fascists are getting their proverbial asses handed to them.
Do you watch the WNBA, Les? You seem to extol enjoyment of the kayfabe aspects that make it popular.
DeleteNo comment.
DeletePerhaps the issued can be settled by a 3 point basketball contest between the
ReplyDeleteHeritage Foundation and Kaitlin Clark of the WNBA? I'd watch!
Wow, this is a master class of what the old regime believes to their very core and how the Overton window has shifted to ensure all humans are allowed access and opportunities to become the best version of themselves they can be. I always knew our many faced troll embraced all the "isms" but to see them all laid out in a row is both scary and impressive.
ReplyDeletepossumlady, you nailed it. These efforts are indeed a way to cut off access to college for women. In fact, based on the podcasts by the MAGA priest class, this is the plan. Shaw said the Heritage Foundation is doing their dead level best to force women and girls back into the home, back into the box where the menfolk controlled everything.
LOL I'm laughing because I follow a lot of young women and they see the plot too. In fact there are several songsters singing powerful ballads of resistance and the audience is right there, singing with them. I'm guessing the patriarchy misjudged the fire burning in the soul of these young women. I say young but they are in their twenties to thirties. They know exactly who they are. Hells bells - they grew up with The Hunger Games and Handmaid's Tale. Shoving them back into the box per Heritage Foundation guidelines is much like trying to shove toothpaste back into the tube once it's been squeezed out.
Regarding sports - I learned a while ago via research into the inspiration of the movie A League of Their Own that then there were women who played baseball with the men. They were viewed as an eccentricity until the women's team shellacked the heck out of the guys team. I seem to remember someone striking out The Babe but I could be wrong. Not fact checking that nugget - not yet.
I said all that to say this - I look forward to an all gender approach to sports. There are athletic girls who outperform the boys all the time so perhaps instead of teams separated by gender we have teams sorted by ability? That means it doesn't matter if a person is transgender. Ability matters, nothing more.
It is not surprising this topic is on the top of folks minds as our SecDef approved the testing of all military personnel to weed out that scourge of every military - low testosterone. Not going to lie, he said he's going to approve gender affirming care for anyone who suffers from Low T.
LOL - guess he has no clue what too much testosterone can do to a person. No no, I won't post spoilers. Suffice it to say I don't believe that word means what he thinks it means. And to mandate gender affirming care in the form of testosterone shots all while shoving anyone of color or the wrong gender out is the height of hypocrisy. Only lethality he's bringing to the table will be the deaths of our service critters from all the complications taking testosterone when not medically necessary. But hey, (high giggle) I'm just a girl, what do I know.
Ugh, spare me the insecurities of men who never learned manners or how to share.
Joe C said... "I have a gay brother and son. I'm not opposed to LGBTQ+ rights."
ReplyDeleteLord know the Dems ain't perfect, but how does someone in your shoes vote for and support a president and I assume the GOP, when they've all about treating gay people horribly and some believe employers have a right to terminate employment of gay ppl?
I get the trans issue to a point. Many people on the LGB side of the letters are struggling with the TQ+ side of that equation. It's complicated. But many conservatives generally do not support gay rights, or the belief people are "born that way" and are okay with pejoratives being used to make fun of gay ppl.
How do square all this with support for your brother and son?
I'll just say, I'm flabbergasted.