The emergence of womens sports has had both +'s and -'s. For instance, there are more sports programs for women, but title 9 has also hurt mens teams of less popular sports. For instance, a mens tennis team here in S Florida was disbanded because they took the funding away to start some womens teams in sports like lacrosse. As a result the guys who had scholorships lost them and several left the school as a result. The school has yet to field a womens lacrosse team due to a lack of participation. The mens tennis coach tried to lobby the school to reinstate the program after that was discovered, but the school said the money must stay in womens sports because of mandated equatable distribution even if the programs did not field teams.
Your point is valid.
Read the NYT (yesterday maybe?). There is now a quiet government expansion of Title 9 into science and engineering in Universities (because of the pathetic lack of women in these fields in the US), which will possibly lead to formal/informal mandates for numerical quotas for female students in these departments. The argument is that something has to be done to jump start the process and end what is termed "unconscious discrimination."
Personally, I think there is a tension between two issues: whether it is required to forcibly jump start something to achieve a goal, or whether to rely on natural diffusion to occur. In the case of race, it is clear to me that a massive jump start was needed because nothing much was diffusing normally due to active resistance. In this case - who knows?