Opinion editor's note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

My heart broke when I read the article "Homeless camp cleared" in the April 20 paper. To treat the people living there so inhumanely should make us all say, "There but for the grace of God go I." Over many years I have been collecting tents and sleeping bags from Goodwill, Salvation Army and many thrift stores and have dropped them off at St. Stephen's in Minneapolis for distribution to homeless people. I know that a majority of them are homeless by no choice of their own. Many are suffering from issues like PTSD, loss of employment, addiction and other emotional struggles. To read that they say they were not allowed to get their personal belongings (including medication) before the camp was destroyed made me cry.

These are human beings like the rest of us and should be treated that way. Judge not lest ye be judged.

Thomas Bergstrom, New Brighton

•••

Every day we are faced with the choice: Do I make peace or do I make war? Shall I cut off that driver or give him the right of way? Do I bad-mouth my neighbor or start a conversation? Do I rip apart a homeless encampment or give the residents some agency, respect and, at the very least, some warning? The city has begun waging a campaign against homeless encampments, vowing to have them all erased. It says that there are 82 shelter beds going unclaimed, so why are these people still living outside?

Why indeed? One definition of insanity is when you keep doing the same thing over and over and keep getting the same result. The city, at this point, seems insane. To keep expecting the homeless to go to shelters — which many claim are scary, traumatic and even dangerous — and then destroying their alternative, only to have to level another encampment weeks later, is crazy. The city has one solution that has never included the input of the unsheltered. And that solution keeps failing. Maybe it's time for the city to stop cutting off the homeless; to start a conversation with them about what they want and need — to make peace.

Cynthia Wetzell, Columbia Heights

•••

It is tragic that we have any homeless people living among us who have no hope and little help. A nation should be judged by how it treats its poorest citizens. The key to resolving the homeless problem resides in first giving a sense of ownership and belonging to our most vulnerable citizens to help them feel that they are an integral and vital part of our larger community. We must also help these individuals battle demons such as mental illness, loneliness, poverty and addiction. Ignoring this problem will not make it go away but will only make matters worse.

A coordinated and multifaceted approach will most certainly help. Cities can and should construct lodging for the homeless on city-owned lands, even possibly using them as a labor source for this. By involving them in these and other community projects, we all will benefit as a society from their talents as they contribute to the greater good and have a place that they can call home.

Michael Pravica, Henderson, Nev.

The opinion piece by state Rep. Paul Anderson, "Year-round E15 access must be permanent" is flawed. Ethanol is flawed, period. The National Academy of Sciences recently published a study (February 2022) that found that ethanol may be a much greater contributor to global warming than plain gasoline. Not that I am in love with gasoline, or fossil fuels of any sort for that matter, but let's not make it worse by forcing ethanol production.

Tyler Lark, University of Wisconsin-Madison, was the lead author of the study which found that ethanol production was likely at least 24% more carbon-intensive than gasoline due to emissions from land-use changes and production and combustion of ethanol.

The only reason ethanol is produced is due to the U.S. Renewable Fuel Standard, a 2005 law that required the used of ethanol. Even if ethanol does raise the octane of gasoline, ethanol lowers the miles per gallon of gasoline because it burns faster and has less energy per gallon.

I think it's time to let the free market decide if ethanol is best or not. If we got rid of the law requiring the use of ethanol, then gasoline producers could decide for themselves what is the most efficient way to produce gasoline. If that includes ethanol, so be it; if not, then the free market has decided.

If the real purpose of the law is as a de facto government subsidy for farmers to grow more corn, then that should be clearly stated in the proponents' arguments. But, what we know for sure is that we're not producing ethanol because it's more efficient or more environmentally friendly.

Douglas Wobbema, Burnsville

Shame on the Star Tribune for printing "Schools aren't the right messengers" (Readers Write, April 22). I am sorry that this person was molested in a church bathroom as a child. That is of course a tragic event to be sure. However, to conflate a predatory child molester with the transgender community is an absurd and irresponsible false equivalence that further reinforces the narrative that the transgender community is perverted or abnormal.

As people so often do when discussing the transgender community, the writer goes directly to talking about genitalia. Honestly, it is the anti-LGBTQ community that needs to get its mind out of the gutter. When will it learn that genitalia does not equal gender?

As always, discrimination is rooted in fear, and fear is rooted in ignorance. What the LGBTQ opponents don't understand is that being gay or transgender or queer is much more than just the banal topic of sex and sexuality. It is a person's identity, and it informs all levels of how they interact with their world.

When we talk about including LGBTQ concepts in early grades (K-3), we're not talking about teaching about sex and sexuality. We're talking about breaking free of the archaic ways that kids learn about gender. From birth, our society begins a process of teaching children "gender norms," how "boys" and "girls" are expected to behave.

By excluding LGBTQ concepts in the early years of development, we reinforce the expectation that everyone should be cisgender and straight. We force kids into these molds and lead them to believe they are abnormal and out of alignment with society if they don't fit. Even if we think we will make space for them as they get older (whatever age you think it is appropriate to start talking about sex and sexuality), we will have already taught all their peers that they are abnormal. We maintain the adversarial, discriminatory environment.

Being open to discussions about gender at early ages is about accepting all people and not ostracizing them at a young age. When we restrict the conversation, we deny them their identity, and to deny that their identity exists is a cruel, isolating traumatization.

I think we can teach our children to be compassionate and inclusive while also teaching them basic safety guidelines, like "stranger danger."

Ben Auckenthaler, Minneapolis

•••

I totally agree with the letter writer's thoughts on who should be introducing and discussing sex education with children in schools. This is not a topic that teachers should be required to handle in a classroom.

I am very sorry she had to experience that horrible incident as an 8-year-old but appreciate her sharing it with the public along with her thoughts.

Deb Schaefgen, Maple Grove

•••

The letter writer had a frightening and awful experience as a child and for that I'm sorry. But her fears of what children could be taught in schools are completely unfounded. No one is proposing anything close to the hypotheticals she brings up. And while I believe she is well-intentioned, this kind of fearmongering is transphobia in disguise. When we let these fears guide us, we aren't keeping our children safe. We are keeping them ignorant and ourselves comfortable.

Ray Lancon, Minneapolis