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

•••

This year marks the 54th anniversary of the Stonewall uprising.

I am a queer, cis, 60-year-old man. In my lifetime alone, it has been amazing to see attitudes and responses change in regard to the rights of queer citizens and their visibility. From my (admittedly limited) vantage point, I have watched queers move from a sexual identity to a political one — from challenging gender norms to exploring them in new and vital ways; from staying silent to becoming a target market ... and now, disturbingly, the target of political dog whistles and violence.

I am not going to offer a tired trope, "Love is love," because for me the journey to being out and alive in my world has never been about that. There is no denying of course that I have great love in my life, and I am by no means ungrateful for that — but my love was never anything the laws of the land or even my faith could regulate. It is as natural to me as breathing, and as essential. But my safety, my rights and my protections to home and employment — those are subject to the laws of the land, and those are impacted by public perception and even by whim.

Take a moment to consider if your safety and ability to live freely in this country were subject to referendum. Consider if the protections of your marriages — visitation rights, homeownership, Social Security — were not only less than a decade old, but also constantly under discussion. These are not questions of "Love is love." These are the things that keep me up at night.

On June 28, 1969, a group of gay, lesbian, bi, trans and queer citizens stood up against a routine bar raid at the Stonewall Inn in New York. They routed the police, upended the West Village and led an uprising that brought national attention to the rights denied queer citizens and the treatment of those citizens in this country.

Michael L. Whistler, Minneapolis

What David French fails to understand in his commentary arguing that transgender people shouldn't be allowed to compete in the sport categories that align with their identities is that biology is not binary, and "biological sex" is a social construct, just like gender identity ("Why sex still matters — in sports and law," StarTribune.com, June 27).

French incorrectly presents biological sex as consisting of two categories that are unalterable and irrefutably defined by biology. Biological sex is typically understood to comprise five components: chromosomes, hormones, genitals, secondary sex characteristics and gonads. What makes biological sex a social construct is not these components themselves — they exist irrefutably — but rather the interpretation of these components into two binary categories.

For many people, these components fall into the same bucket — "male" or "female." But for many people, they don't. A cisgender woman who's had an oophorectomy (removal of ovaries) has at least two components not in the "female" category. I'm in the "male" category for two components, the "female" category for two components, and the final component is unknown (most people never have their chromosomes tested and therefore don't know what they are). In which sport category would French argue I need to compete? French conveniently forgets about the existence of nonbinary and intersex people. I imagine French does this because our existence disproves the foundation of French's transphobic argument: That biological sex consists of two distinct, finite and unalterable categories.

The cool thing about social constructs is that they change. French's transphobia can change, too. For more information, I recommend reading anything by biologist Julia Serano.

The idea that we will be expected to be car-less in a few years seems like a fool's errand given the present state of the bus and light-rail system ("New goal: 60% of Mpls. trips car-free," June 26). Yesterday, I wanted to take a bus in St. Paul from St. Clair Avenue at Milton Street to St. Clair at Snelling Avenue. Approximately 1 mile. Until recently, the 70 bus line serviced this route. No longer. A five-minute ride has turned into a half-mile walk to Grand Avenue, a bus ride to Snelling, and an A-Line bus from Grand to St. Clair. Total time: 28 minutes.

Retired, I live in Zurich, Switzerland, now and am only visiting St. Paul, my former home. There is a bus, tram or train within 300 yards of every resident of the city of Zurich, to get anywhere in the city and suburbs with a wait of no longer than 10 minutes, even on Sundays and holidays when everything is closed. We don't need a car and do not own one. Until the Twin Cities comes up with something like this system, I don't see how you can be shooting for 60% car-less transportation. It's a pipe dream.

John A. Desteian, Zurich

I'm saddened to learn about the passing of Tony Bouza ("Colorful, controversial, courageous," June 27). I was a member of the City Council during his entire time as chief and we had numerous significant disagreements. While we had heated debates, we respected each other and would often join each other at lunch. In retrospect, he was correct on some issues (the force was top-heavy and too involved in politics) while I was correct on others (we did have a gang problem, which he disputed, and over his objections, we did need more police officers on the street). Tony didn't want police officers to have bullet-resistant vests, and I battled with him and eventually raised money from businesses to provide them for our officers. When Bouza called Walt Dziedzic and me derogatory names, Mayor Don Fraser, over Walt's and my objections, suspended the chief for three days. We both told the mayor that we could defend ourselves and didn't need his help.

Bottom line, back in those days politicians and department heads could disagree and debate but still respect each other. Tony Bouza was a character and loved publicity. He will never be forgotten. Rest in peace, Tony.

The writer was a Minneapolis City Council member from 1976 to 1998.

•••

Love him or hate him, Bouza epitomized leadership. Leadership is simpler than the publishers of 300-page books would like you to believe; it involves having a vision for a better future and the ability to communicate said vision to others capable of creating change. Simple enough, yet relatively rare among today's public officials, elected or appointed. Faced with significant economic, political, social and environmental challenges, as we are today, leadership is exactly what we need.