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

•••

Last Friday, the Metropolitan Council announced appointments to its policymaking board. In theory, these people represent geographic areas. They are supposed to provide "direct connections to stakeholders directly affected by Met Council policies and activities," according to Chair Charlie Zelle in a March 3 news release.

The Met Council is more than a planning agency. It is also responsible for housing, parks, transit and wastewater management. It has vast power over the life of the Twin Cities region, including veto power over area cities, direct taxing authority and a 2023 budget that currently tops $1.3 billion.

But do you know who your Met Council representative is? Do you trust that your council member fully understands the policy issues affecting your area? Personally, I have reached out to my reappointed commissioner several times without a response, and I live near the biggest, most complicated project the Met Council has ever undertaken (the Southwest light rail).

Sen. Scott Dibble and Rep. Frank Hornstein have introduced legislation to allow the public to directly elect Met Council members. With accountability to constituents, council members should be better informed, and important regional issues will have greater visibility.

Jeanette Colby, Minneapolis

Should U.S. presidential candidates also be evaluated for antisocial personality disorder? Warning signs are: constant lying, lack of empathy, criminal behavior, inability to show regret or remorse, a liking for insulting people, and a selfish and self-centered personality. Someone with these attributes does not need a professional evaluation. The voters can see it and make up their own minds.

Sometimes a candidate can have all these signs of a mental disorder and still get elected president. That is democracy; the people choose.

John Wong, Edina

I commend Cheryl Reeve for standing up for the trans community in her commentary, and I am baffled by the amount of people who have tried to talk down to her about what is best for women's sports and what defines a woman at all ("Court ruling is a powerful lift," Opinion Exchange, March 2). Multiple readers wrote in to express their discomfort with the idea of trans athletes competing with other athletes of their own gender ("What about objecting voices?" Readers Write, March 6). Readers casually and inaccurately referred to trans women as men and bemoaned "biological advantages" for trans children. What I don't understand is: Why this is the only time there is a public outcry about biological advantages? Michael Phelps' body produces far less lactic acid than normal, and he has double-jointed ankles and an outrageously large wingspan. He was born with a body built for swimming that has enabled to him to have a storied career and win countless awards. Is that unfair to the swimmers he's beaten over the years? Are people lining up to complain about that in the newspaper? Because I haven't seen it. The controversy here is not about fairness, and it's not about sports, it is about people's inability to accept that trans women are women, and that trans men are men.

More important, Reeve is one of the most significant figures in Minnesota when it comes to women's sports. She built a WNBA dynasty and is the coach of the national women's basketball team. When she says, "Transgender exclusion pits women athletes against one another, reinforces the harmful notion that there is only one right way to be a woman and distracts us from the real threats to women's sports," I think her résumé adds some weight to her statements. If reading her thoughts challenges what you feel defines a man or woman, then you should see that as an opportunity to learn more about gender as well as the reality of (and the science behind) trans identities.

•••

Lynx coach Cheryl Reeve wrote about a court case that was recently won by transgender powerlifter JayCee Cooper, born male who now identifies as female. The judge's decision said that USA Powerlifting had discriminated against Cooper by not allowing her to compete in the female division.

Numerous studies have confirmed that, pound for pound, men have denser bones, larger hearts and more muscle fiber, and are stronger than women. A Princeton study found that, even adjusted for weight, female powerlifters performed at average 67% of their male counterparts. That's why women's sports exist. While there are significant performance differences among women (and again, further weight classes within the female division), men as a class have an insurmountable advantage over women as a class as a result of having gone through male puberty, something women will never do. Gender identity does not affect male advantage. This science informed USA Powerlifting's transgender policy, and was presented in court.

The judge's decision stated that "Performance advantage is not a reason recognized under the MHRA [Minnesota Human Rights Act] to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or sex," and that "USA Powerlifting's proffered experts have no relevant testimony to offer." So the judge did not deny that Cooper may have an unfair advantage, but that was irrelevant. More important was that Cooper's emotional state and belief system be honored.

This ruling raises the question, doesn't allowing known, measurable performance advantages into the women's category discriminate against all women?

•••

In response to the excellent March 2 commentary by Cheryl Reeve, recent letters challenged the participation of trans women and girls in women's sports.

These letter writers ignored the main topic of Reeve's piece: The Minnesota District Court ruling in JayCee Cooper v. USA Powerlifting and Powerlifting Minnesota ordering that "USAPL shall cease and desist from all unfair discriminatory practices" under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. Like I am, Reeve is "happy that those rights have been upheld by the court."

I find it amusing that one letter writer would invoke comments by Caitlyn Jenner in response, as Jenner hardly has been consistent in the matter. Back in 2015, she was ready to "acknowledge all the young trans athletes who are out there — given the chance to play sports as who they really are." Her anti-trans-participation comments were issued after she became interested in being a Republican political candidate.

Furthermore, as Reeves stated, the claim "transgender women are a threat to women's sports" is false. She lists several genuine such threats. Instead of those, the letter writers, along with many Republican politicians like Jenner, choose to attack participation of a tiny number of trans athletes.

Reading "Dying seek legal right to aid their passing" (March 3) evoked Edward G. Robinson's death scene in the 1973 movie "Soylent Green" (playing Sol Roth) as he committed suicide. While I pray for those who face untimely death, there is courage in those who choose to stay and fight. My mother survived cancer at 55, renewed her nursing license at 57 and worked in oncology for years comforting the condemned until succumbing herself at 66 in 1993. Opening the door to "approved" death will lead to a slippery slope of "suggested" death and ultimately "imposed" death.