@Texas-Hawk-10 My point was that so many people blame Title 9 for not having additional men's sports, or when cuts are made to men's programs. Athletic departments pour gas on that fire by posturing as if they are required to even up the numbers rather than meeting the standards by adding programs for women.
As you say, KU could add new programs for women if they wanted to add men's soccer. I was referring to the hypothetical situation IF no women wanted to join those programs. Trying to do it in good faith but not succeeding is a valid Title 9 defense to numerical disparities. As I said, no one uses that defense and just lops men's programs on Title 9.
To be honest, your comment indicates the likely reason: schools are cutting men's, and not adding women's, programs because in all likelihood the sports would be successful participation-wise, and ADs don't want the expense of carrying more non-revenue sports. The definition, really, of a zero-sum situation due to limited budgets. (I do hope Breaking, despite its apparent popularity, doesn't become an NCAA sport, but the revenue possibilities might be intriguing. Recruiting trip reports might be fun: "No, we didn't visit any dancers' homes. We spent the entire trip in clubs.")