I read the brief piece on Gov. Tim Walz’s defense of trans males in sports (“Walz backs trans kids as Democrats grapple with bans,” June 5) with great frustration. I hate the way issues around trans folks, and particularly trans youth, have been strategically hijacked by transphobes on the right. I am a parent to a trans young adult, and I am also a pastor, an elected official and an avid sports fan who will fight to the death for trans rights, but who will also confess that I think we need to have a more honest conversation about trans males in sports. But that’s not what this is about. This is the right’s strategy (an unfortunately effective one) to hijack the conversation to demonize or at least marginalize trans youth. It’s an ugly, destructive red herring. Let’s have the conversation about sports, but it is secondary to the broader conversation we need to have around protecting trans rights in general, and particularly trans rights for our young people. There are a lot of myths, a lot of lies and a lot of abject misunderstanding out there around our trans youth, gender affirming care and what our trans youth need in regard to gender dysphoria. Let’s not bite the red herring bait of the right on this.
Paul Baudhuin, St. Louis Park
The headline on the lead article in Friday’s newspaper misstated the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in an important workplace discrimination case (“Bias found against straight woman,” June 6). While the court did rule in favor of the straight woman who sued claiming that she was wrongfully bypassed for a promotion and then demoted from her public sector job in Ohio, both times in favor of less-qualified gay employees, it did not determine that she was the victim of unlawful “bias.”
The headline that the court “found” bias existed against the claimant is palpably inaccurate and possibly premature. The case has not gone to trial yet. It was dismissed before trial by two lower courts on grounds that the claimant did not satisfy the heightened evidentiary standard recognized by them and in nearly two dozen other jurisdictions in so-called “reverse discrimination” lawsuits by white people, men or straight individuals. The high court unanimously overturned those rulings and sent the case back to the federal trial court in Ohio for adjudication under the normal standard of proof required in conventional discrimination cases, rather than necessitating that the claimant present “background circumstances,” such as statistical evidence or showing that the challenged employment decisions were made by gay individuals, neither of which is needed in ordinary cases of bias brought by “minority” individuals. However, a concurring opinion authored by Justice Clarence Thomas and joined by one other jurist pointed out the slippery definition of what constitutes the “majority” or “minority” in workplace cases.
In short, while the high court ruling clarifies the burden of proof for “reverse” bias cases, facilitates pursuing them and further imperils the endangered species of affirmative action and diversity, equity and inclusion programs, it does not, as of yet, tilt the balance in favor of “majority” employees or against those in the “minority.” That may still occur in the event the lawsuit actually goes to trial, unless it is settled, as is likely. As that sage legal observer, Yogi Berra, remarked: “It ain’t over ’til it’s over,” and this case is not.
Marshall H. Tanick, Minneapolis
