Readers Write: Sen. Eichorn’s arrest, trans athletes, kidney disease

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

State Sen. Justin Eichorn, R-Grand Rapids, was arrested in Bloomington Monday for allegedly soliciting who he thought was a teenage girl for sex (“GOP calls for Eichorn to resign after arrest,” March 19). Turns out the teenager was actually a Twin Cities police detective.

The Republicans, as they should, have called for him to resign. As did Minnesota DFL executive director Heidi Kraus Kaplan, who said “No one who solicits children belongs anywhere near public office or the State Capitol.”

I ask: How is this different from state Sen. Nicole Mitchell, DFL-Woodbury, being arrested for allegedly breaking and entering into her late father’s home where his widow still lived? Police say she left her Woodbury home in the middle of the night dressed all in black and carrying a flashlight covered with a black sock. How is this different from Eichorn’s actions? Both were arrested and charged with felonies, and both were dealing with vulnerable people.

After the 2024 legislative session ended, both Gov. Tim Walz and DFL Chair Ken Martin called for Mitchell to resign. But the Senate DFLers decided that she should have due process and wait for her trial. Mitchell then, somehow, was able to get her trial postponed until after the current legislative session is over.

I do not approve of either of these alleged transgressions. Could these two opposite feelings from the DFL be tied to their desire to maintain power? Just asking.

Michael McLean, Richfield

•••

It would appear that criminal activity statistics among members of the Minnesota Legislature has surpassed that of undocumented residents. With the recent arrest of Eichorn, perhaps more of a Republican back bencher, coupled with the arrest of Mitchell, perhaps more of a DFL rising star, Senate leadership is now faced with the task of shepherding an increasingly felonious flock. Good luck.

Stephen E. Pitts, Waconia

I am writing this letter in response to Gina Rickert’s March 15 commentary “An elite female athlete’s perspective on gender in sport.” I have been in health care all my life, and am a retired woman with a doctorate in nursing practice. In life, online and in my practice, I have encountered parents of children born with ambiguous genitalia who are faced with many difficult decisions. I have not been privileged to speak with any of these children as adults. I can understand the concept of being born with male genitalia but feeling like a female or vice versa. I agree with Rickert, and do not feel it is fair for biological females to compete with transgender females. Having been born a year too late to experience the changes Title IX had on high school sports, I was, unfortunately, unable to participate in team sports but see the benefits for those younger than me.

In the final paragraph of Rickert’s commentary she states, “We must continue to foster and protect equitable athletic opportunities for all women.” It seems the majority of citizens agree on what will not work. I am asking for an alternative that would work, allowing transgender individuals to participate in and benefit from team sports. I do not feel it is fair to bar transgender females from all sports without offering an alternative. Could the athletic community, health experts, parents and the transgender population get together and come up with possible solutions?

Louise Winter, St. Louis Park

The writer is a retired registered nurse.

•••

There are two problems with Rickert’s commentary. These problems recur often in coverage of trans women in sports and the reader does wish the Minnesota Star Tribune would reconsider printing any article that contains them.

First, her central argument is an equivocation. “Males and females are different,” writes Rickert. She states the obvious, of course, but she also equates trans women with men. This is not only offensive; it is demonstrably inaccurate. Trans women are not men in ways quantifiable to their athletic performance. If you have not seen it, please consider this study from the British Journal of Sports Medicine published in 2024. It shows that, by many metrics, trans women have no advantage and, by some metrics — jumping height relative to body weight, VO2 transfer — they have significant disadvantages.

Secondly, athletes, without further qualifications, are simply not a credible source of opinion on the subject. Unless Rickert has an advanced degree in sports medicine, endocrinology or an associated field, the reader wonders why her status as an athlete once-upon-a-time makes her an expert on the question of gender and sports.

The reader hopes you will reconsider printing any further article on this subject that displays these features. It really does get old quick.

Erica Connerney, New York

The writer is a transgender activist.

•••

Rickert’s commentary about gender in sports is a logical and well reasoned argument for the protection of female athletes and a fair competition environment. Thank you for printing it.

Matthew L. Rowles, North Oaks

March is Kidney Awareness Month, a good time to remind people how important social services are for people with chronic diseases. So many people unable to afford insurance need Medicaid to cover their medical expenses. And Medicare is vital for anyone with kidney disease.

I have a genetic disease, polycystic kidney disease (PKD). I was born with PKD; I didn’t choose to get sick. There is no cure, only treatment. And because my mother died from PKD, I knew I had to live a healthy lifestyle, staying active and choosing a healthy diet. Living a life with chronic disease is a marathon, and every day involves making decisions about my health. Surviving chronic disease takes a lot of effort and money, as well as support from family.

When I started dialysis I became eligible for Medicare coverage, even though I was under 65, still working full time and had good insurance coverage through my job. I paid nothing for my daily dialysis. Eventually I reached a point where I could no longer work, and I became eligible for Social Security disability payments. It wasn’t nearly the same amount as my full time job, but I got by and was able to focus on my health.

When my niece came forward to offer her kidney, Medicare completely covered the cost of my transplant, as well as the testing, hospitalization and surgery for my donor. Medicare covers the costs of heart and liver transplants too. But it wasn’t always that way. Up until 1972, when Medicare was expanded to cover transplants, only the rich could afford dialysis. There weren’t very many machines available and it was expensive. A panel decided who would receive dialysis and who would die from their disease. Many women who were not the breadwinners in their family were not even considered. The original death panel!

I’m so grateful I’ve had the support of my family, and I’m grateful for Medicare and Social Security. I rely on both even after my transplant. I’m still battling health issues, but despite that I’m a vital part of my immediate family and I’m involved in my community.

I worry every day that the social services so many of us reply upon will go away with the stroke of a pen. Billionaires don’t worry about paying for medical bills, food or housing. They are only concerned with making more and more money at the expense of others when, in reality, so many people who rely on these services were and are vital contributors to our society and economy. By discounting us, everyone will suffer.

Michele Jansen, Minneapolis