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

•••

By voting to ban trans women from competing on girl's or women's sports teams (front page, April 21), U.S. House Republicans are finally addressing kitchen table issues that affect us all. For example, Minnesota lost 5,700 jobs in March. Why? Trans women spiking volleyballs. We see massive flooding happening around the state. What could have caused it? Meteorologically speaking, it was trans women making layups. And just look at Clarence Thomas' abdication of judicial ethics. I need to do more research, but I'm confident blame must be placed on the goals made by trans women on the soccer field.

You see it every day: A coal miner removing his filthy clothes after a backbreaking day. An elderly widow wondering how she'll pay her ever-increasing grocery bills. A young single mom struggling to tell her children that she has to choose between electricity and food. What keeps these hard-working Americans up at night? Trans women who just want to play sports. Thank you, Republicans, for seeing what ails this country.

Travis Anderson, Minneapolis

•••

The Star Tribune has been offering much coverage of how other states have fared with their entries into legalized marijuana. I hope it does the same regarding transgender care for minors. Since the state has declared itself a refuge, that would be an important contribution a news organization could make.

The U.S. lags behind Europe in all kinds of ways, and the issue of transgender care for minors is one of them. Sweden, arguably the world leader in the area of transgender medicine, has reversed its policies regarding this issue, for good reasons: the science tells us that these medical interventions risk causing more harm than good. According to the summary of key recommendations from the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare, February 2022 update:

"The guidance has changed from a previously strong recommendation to treat youth with hormones, to new caution to avoid hormones except for 'exceptional cases.' A more cautious approach that prioritizes non-invasive interventions is now recommended, due to recognition of the importance of allowing ongoing maturation and identity formation of youth."

In addition: "the NBHW assert that the risks of hormonal treatments outweigh the benefits for most gender-dysphoric youth" and "Psychological and psychiatric care will become the first line of treatment for all gender dysphoric youth [younger than] 18."

This is not "anti-trans." This is not "transphobia." This is science.

The Star Tribune has a duty to this community to inform the conversation with the best science and least amount of propaganda, and to ensure the best care for a very vulnerable population that is at risk of lifelong harm from medication and surgery intended to treat issues that may not be primarily gender-related.

Xandra Coe, Minneapolis

As one of the 25% of senior citizens who won't get state tax relief on my Social Security under the current proposal ("On Social Security taxes, Minnesota seniors need a talking to," Lori Sturdevant column, April 25), I still agree with Minnesota Revenue Commissioner Paul Marquart and Gov. Tim Walz that the extra tax relief that full exclusion of Social Security benefits would give to comfortably off seniors like myself is far better spent on programs for low-income families. Better food and housing security and early childhood education for the next generation has payoffs for all Minnesotans far greater than giving a bit more discretionary spending to we whose basic needs are already met.

I just finished my first season doing volunteer tax prep for low-income Minnesotans, and I am quite aware of how much a child tax credit can mean to struggling families. I also agree with Ms. Sturdevant that most seniors in my position are smart enough to know that, or at least understand it if it is explained to them as she laid out in her column. Let's stay the course and get the job done with tax relief only for those who need it and use the rest on other programs benefiting children.

Jennie Orr Thomas, Hastings

In the last half century, we've had to look at our attitudes and behavior toward people based on their gender, their race, their sexual orientation, their physical appearance, and a host of other things — and we are better for it. Now I believe we have an opportunity to look long and hard at our attitudes toward people who are older.

Old isn't automatically bad — far from it. Indeed, if I were advising the Biden team ("Biden announces 2024 reelection bid: 'Let's finish this job,' " StarTribune.com, April 25), I would make the 2024 election a sort of tipping point where we finally come to terms with age and declare that we are not going to judge or stereotype people based on how many times Earth has circled the sun in their lifetimes. That is ageism, plain and simple. It's time to embrace age as involving a vast array of valuable life experiences that lead to depth and wisdom. Other societies revere the elderly, but we have to apologize for being old. It's time for that to stop.

Joe Biden — or any other candidate for president — does not have to compete in a decathlon or challenge others to arm-wrestle. What that candidate must do is demonstrate a perspective and expertise on issues that is borne out of extensive experiences, grounded in real-world challenges, and then work on them with a steady hand and a wise heart. Rather than apologizing for his age, President Biden should exploit it and make us all rethink our rather sad and ignorant stereotypes about getting older. We should be ashamed if all we care about are "optics" or unwarranted prejudices and fears. Once it was time for Gay Pride; now it's time for Age Pride.

David Lapakko, Richfield

•••

My hope is that Minnesota's Democratic U.S. senators, representatives, and top state officials will hold off endorsing Biden. One reason: the Afghanistan withdrawal. For someone who was touted for his foreign policy expertise, it was horrifically executed.

What's more, Biden is hard-pressed to take on the Trumps and other Republicans as grifters given his own family's history. He hasn't even been able to sell a pretty solid legislative record. See his approvals with independents and how many of them would like to see him run again.

Biden wanted us to believe in 2020 that he was going to be a one-term president. His thinking was right then, and is still the appropriate perspective.

So what's the alternative? Let me start with three I'd take happily in lieu of Biden if the convention were held today: U.S. Sens. Amy Klobuchar and Tina Smith and Gov. Tim Walz. All will likely be more on top of their game in January 2029 than President Biden is today.

Beyond that, there are some very good Democratic governors. Think Michigan and New Mexico. Add Pennsylvania. Plus: Kamala Harris, Sherrod Brown, Steve Bullock. Anyone else?

Let's hope somebody other than Robert F. Kennedy Jr. jumps in. The water's fine. Biden still president in December 2028? Really?

Philip Friedman, Roseville