Readers Write: Trans athletes, funding for the outdoors, ‘Hands Off’ protests

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

•••

President Donald Trump’s executive order banning transgender athletes from participating in sports claims it is a matter of “safety, fairness, dignity and truth.” We’re not convinced. And the front page story in Sunday’s paper — about the trans students settling uneventfully into their high school teams — would certainly bear that position out (“‘Space of belonging,‘” April 6).

Consider safety. There is a certain level of assumed risk in all sports. Athletics always involve contests between opponents who are unevenly matched in size, strength and/or endurance. The challenge of living up to, and sometimes exceeding, expectations is what makes athletics so exciting. Minimizing injuries and enhancing physical and mental health should always be part of school athletics. Trans athletes do not introduce new safety issues.

Consider fairness. Athletics is about education, and the law guarantees every student a right to education. Denying a student the opportunity to learn the things athletics has to teach like teamwork, discipline, resilience, simply to protect someone from the possibility of a second-place finish makes no sense. The law protects the right to play, not the right to win.

Consider dignity. We acknowledge the soul-searching that goes into making the decision to transition. Aligning who you are on the outside with who you are at the deepest core of your being is the product of long, careful deliberation. Excluding trans students from sports erodes the respect they are due as human beings and perpetuates the hateful discrimination they face.

Consider truth. We need more of this. So much more. Trump can call diversity, equity and inclusion dirty words, but that doesn’t make them so. The lived experiences of transgender people are real and deserve to be acknowledged. Truth is about embracing diversity, equity and inclusion, not denying its existence.

Nearly 50 years ago, the Minnesota State High School League objected when two girls sought to play on their school teams, denigrating their bodies and their motivation and contending that their participation on teams created for boys would undo the future of girls’ athletics. But that’s not what happened. It took a federal court’s decision to open the door for high school girls in 1972.

We must not slam that door on transgender athletes.

Peg Brenden, St. Paul

Sheri Brenden, Minnetonka

As a high school senior, Peg Brenden played tennis at St. Cloud Tech after a decision by U.S. District Judge Miles Lord in May 1972. Sheri Brenden, her sister, wrote a book about the case called “Break Point.”

•••

Under the subhead “Be good humans” in the article about two transgender high school athletes, we read that the school district where the boy who identifies as a girl, Corey, runs on the girls team barred the coach from even talking about this violation of girls’ Title IX rights. A former coach of the athlete announced to the girls’ team a transgender (i.e., male) athlete would be joining the team and “If you guys have issues with that, come and talk to me.” And to another coach, “You’re OK with it, or you’re not,” and, “We’re trying to teach kids to be good humans.”

So, there’s a ban on talking to the media, girls who “have an issue” with a male in their sport need an attitude adjustment, and giving up your right to single-sex sports is being a good human. Questioning any of that is equated with being a bad human. There’s some weapons-grade bullying going on, but this article makes clear it’s not directed at transgender athletes.

Sarah Barker, St. Paul

Dennis Anderson’s Outdoors article in the April 6 Star Tribune summarized this lifelong (71 years) hunter and fisherman and user of public land’s opinion superbly (“Birders, bikers, hikers should pay their fair share”). And I say this not as an “all users should pay” critique. I say this from my own self-interest. I’m greedy and not wealthy. I want inexpensive, large tracts of land that are professionally managed to hold lots of wildlife for my children — and now, more importantly, my grandchildren — to hunt and fish on. Hunters use these Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) primarily for three months in the fall. That’s 25% of the year.

We have many thousands of dog walkers in our state alone. Now include the birders, cyclists and just plain old walking nature lovers in our great state with a population of around 5.75 million people. My (diminishing) hunting club is under 9% of our population ... and shrinking. If hunting will survive, it will be because we open our minds to other outdoor enthusiasts on lands that, yes, we initially paid for, but we can’t now afford to take care of. Would a user of a WMA pay a $5 user fee? Minnesotans have said “yes” before.

Our great outdoor heritage sporting traditions need help. As a wise person once said to me, “Save the wilderness, invite the crowd” (though at first, I was repulsed by this). Outdoor nature participants, time to kick in a few bucks. Hunters, smell the coffee.

David Larson, Minneapolis

•••

Anderson’s recent column twists some facts to advance a divisive narrative that we only have hunters and anglers to thank for funding habitat restoration and protection in Minnesota. In fact, the majority of Minnesotans voted to pass the Clean Water, Land, and Legacy Amendment, which increased our state’s sales tax by three-eighths of a percent to fund conservation and habitat projects, clean water projects, trails and the arts. So nonconsumptive outdoor enthusiasts do, in fact, pay.

Anderson claims that we only have hunters and anglers to thank for the Legacy Amendment, but that is untrue. Many environmental groups supported its passage. And we all benefit from the funding it generates.

Legacy Amendment funding generates around $200 million per year. In comparison, the Department of Natural Resources’ Game and Fish Fund, which receives most of its funding from sales of hunting and fishing licenses, and also from federal funds (presumably excise taxes on guns and ammo), totaled $116.8 million in 2022. The claim that nonconsumptive outdoor enthusiasts are not paying their fair share is not supported by this quick comparison.

Anderson also ignores the fact that some of us who bike, hike and photograph birds also fish and hunt. In other words, some of us do pay hunting- and fishing-specific fees, even though it might not be obvious while we’re out photographing birds.

Instead of thanking all Minnesotans for funding conservation efforts, which we all do, Anderson chose a more divisive angle. It plays well around the fire at hunting camp, but it isn’t helpful.

It would have been more helpful to present a case for why this funding is critically important — and is it sufficient to provide and maintain the habitat, clean water and trails projects that Minnesotans want?

Mark Brigham, Andover

It is clear how completely rattled Alex Plechash, Minnesota GOP chairman, is by reading his diversions in response to the massive rally at the State Capitol last week. I was there, with tens of thousand others, including the elderly, the disabled, parents with children, veterans, all representing the hoi polloi. We have seen zero proof of massive government waste, zero common-sense solutions and zero interest in working for the people who pay taxes. Rather, we see an endless movement for tax breaks to the wealthiest, crashing retirement accounts, huge inflation costs to families and massive future deficits. Yes, Plechash, momentum is building — maybe not in the direction you hope.

Lisa Citak, Woodbury