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

•••

On this 247th recognition of the Declaration of Independence, we should all acknowledge that America is still an imperfect union primarily because every one of the people who lives here is imperfect. The very wise, old-fashioned President Theodore Roosevelt stated in his book "Fear God and take your own part":

"Fear God, in the true sense of the word, means love God, respect God, honor God; and all of this can only be done by loving our neighbor, treating him justly and mercifully, and in all ways endeavoring to protect him from injustice and cruelty; thus obeying, as far as our human frailty will permit, the great and immutable law of righteousness."

Wouldn't it be wonderful if every person living in this country would "take their part" by heeding Roosevelt's words and becoming more perfect themselves, thus making this not a perfect country but certainly a more perfect country?

Dave Toner, Brooklyn Park

•••

I am writing to assure her she is not the only one asking these questions. As I hung our flags for Memorial Day, I wondered how my neighbors would interpret my actions. Would they think I was doing this because I was a card-carrying MAGA member? Would they think I was a right-wing patriot who supports the good old U.S.A., whether right or wrong? The answer is this: I display the flag because I believe in the ideals that this country was founded on. I believe all people are created equal and are endowed with certain unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as enunciated in the Declaration of Independence. We have the right to exercise our religion (not just worship) and the right to free speech, as enunciated in the First Amendment.

Have we lived up to these ideals? Obviously not. All human beings make mistakes, including our governmental leaders. I am not saying we ignore the mistakes or cover them up. We all need to acknowledge our errors, both individually and collectively. I am saying we can recognize when something has been done wrong and still believe in the ideals that our country was founded on. We can still work toward bringing those ideals to reality. We can start again by acknowledging each other's dignity and work at having reasoned and respectful discussion at all levels of society and all forms of communication.

Leo H. Martin, Minneapolis

Regarding the decision by the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board to replace the traditional large fireworks show on the riverfront with a laser light show, I'd like to say thank you on behalf of veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder and pets who are traumatized by firework displays ("Mpls. forgoes fireworks, but lasers in on a new idea," July 1). Veterans and others who have gone through a trauma that included explosions, gunfire, loud noises or fire may be more likely to find fireworks to be a reminder — a trigger or cue — of such past events.

The decision was driven by budget, staffing and crowd-control concerns, but veterans with PTSD and our furry friends will benefit from this change. I hope they enjoy the laser light show. I also hope that other hosts of large firework displays such as the State Fair, which concludes each night of the fair with a massive display, will consider the impact of these shows on people and pets who find these events stressful.

•••

Less than two months ago, Star Tribune business columnist Evan Ramstad wrote a piece about how to get people back to downtown, ending with: "Of course, the city needs to keep making progress on public safety and policing."

In his recent piece, Ramstad creates an equivalency between marijuana and fireworks legalization. Well, let this "prig" enlighten: A significant difference between the two is that the former is primarily a personal liberty, with few externalities; fireworks are all about externalities: noise, pollution (of all sorts), danger to bystanders, fire dangers, etc.

Ramstad seems to have completely misunderstood a study (titled "When prohibition works") that he cites from a Carnegie Mellon public policy professor, even ending with a quote that contradicts his entire premise: "Fireworks regulations were created by professionals approaching the problem in a rational, responsible, balancing-of-considerations way, whereas cannabis legislation was anything but." The professor also concluded that "use-related harms fell when fireworks were banned and rose when those bans were repealed." (On the economic front, the professor illustrates another principal difference: "illegal distribution [of fireworks] is primarily of diverted legal products, not of illegally produced materials.")

To Ramstad's stated desire for a safer city: Aside from safety-of-use issues, it is well known that fireworks noise and gunfire are often difficult to distinguish, making urban policing that much more difficult. With the explosion of guns in our communities already, do we really need to add fireworks to the mix?

A recent letter writer responding to David French about males in women's sports has added even more fogginess to the already confusing public discussion about biological sex coming from progressives ("It's not so simple," Readers Write, June 29, and "Why sex still matters — in sports and law," StarTribune.com, June 26). She labels French as "transphobic" because he describes biological sex as "consisting of two distinct, finite and unalterable categories," i.e., male and female — which in actual fact is a demonstrable biological reality that goes back over a billion years and includes all mammalian species.

Her counter-argument is that "biological sex" is a social construct like "gender identity," and yet in her estimation it comprises clear biological components such as chromosomes, plus secondary sex characteristics like hormones and genitalia. And she argues that, because women like her can have their ovaries removed, this means they can change their biological sex through selective surgeries. This is false and frankly incomprehensible.

What she does not understand is that biological sex is determined exclusively and unalterably by chromosomes (XX for females, XY for males), because it is the chromosomes that mandate the embryonic development of the male or female hormones, genitalia and gonads we are born with, regardless of what we choose to remove or modify later in life. This is a general and universally recognized biological rule despite the existence of a small percentage of people who are chromosomally intersex or whose embryonic development diverges from the norm.

Thus biological sex is an unalterable biological construct, not a social construct open to whim or misinformation. A male does not become a female by removal of his penis, and a female does not become a male by removal of the ovaries or breast tissue, regardless of how fervently they wish it to be so.

The above argument for recognition of scientific truth describes demonstrable facts determined by physical reality, not opinion or social playfulness. Calling people names (e.g., "transphobic") when people such as French describe a clear physical reality contributes nothing to the social issue at hand.

Bonnie Beresford, Alexandria, Minn.