The March 31 article "NCAA to phase in trans rules" tells us of plans to follow the International Olympic Committee's (IOC's) lead in "moving away from testosterone-based limits toward a system that doesn't presume transgender women have an advantage."

What is missing in this story and many like it is any attempt to look at what science tells us about the difference between male and female physical capabilities and the impact of medical transition on those capabilities. Emma Hilton, a researcher in developmental biology at the University of Manchester, Great Britain, and Tommy Lundberg, a physiologist at the Karolinska Institute, Sweden, performed a systematic review of the scientific literature addressing this topic in 2020 in an article titled "Transgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage" (tinyurl.com/hilton-lundberg).

Hilton and Lundberg found that indeed, males do have a significant physical advantage over females in sports. The performance gap between males and females ranges from between 11 and 13% in the events of rowing, swimming and running to between 31 and 37% in weightlifting to more than 50% in the speed of baseball pitches. The gap is so great that 14-year-old males have broken the women's records in the 800- and 1,500-meter track events. These differences in physical ability are the reason women's sports were developed in the first place.

Hilton and Lundberg also looked at the available research on the impact of medical transition (i.e., testosterone suppression) on transwomen's physical capabilities. Research is sparse, but what is available shows that while testosterone suppression leads to modest losses in lean body mass, muscle area and strength, it brings trans women nowhere near the levels of biological females.

The IOC's previous standard of requiring trans women to suppress their testosterone levels for the 12 months prior to competition was not fair nor based in science. But that standard at least gave a slight nod to the reality that males have a physical advantage over females. Now the IOC and NCAA tell us they will not even presume that trans women have an advantage. They are demonstrating that they do not consider women's sports to be real sports deserving of a level playing field. There are only a few fields of endeavor where biological sex matters, and sport is one of them.

Susan Illg, St. Paul

A Minnesota Senate bill makes insurance companies administrators of "paid leave" benefits ("State GOP unveils family leave bill," March 22). The senators believe the insurance companies can administer it better than our government.

Consider that when insurance companies calculate their premium rates for a particular coverage, they first add their administrative costs and then the actual benefit cost paid to the recipient. They also estimate a nice profit.

Administrative costs include: executive and employee salaries, agent fees, lobbyists' pay, campaign contributions, etc. Administrative costs have been known to sometimes go as high as 30% or more of the premium taken in.

Regarding benefit costs, you can be sure there is already a discussion among insurance companies and lobbyists as to how this "paid leave" benefit plan should be tailored. Should it have a deductible? Should it exclude sick leave and only cover time lost for child birth and related medical problems? Should the benefit be based on a percentage of lost salary? What is the shortest and longest period of time for coverage? How short should the husband's benefit be? Deny coverage for same-sex parents?

If the government administers paid leave, it would need to add salary costs — lower than insurance companies' salaries. It probably wouldn't add a deductible. It wouldn't add a profit to the costs. The administrative cost would likely be from 5% to 8%. The rest would go directly to the recipients of this benefit.

The government would not take a big profit from my tax dollars. It is experienced in administering benefits to its citizens and is efficient in handling large volumes if Congress grants it ample operating expenses.

Philip Eiden, Bloomington

•••

More than 30 years ago, when having our first child, my wife had to leave work before her due date for medical reasons. When she physically could not return to work within five weeks of the Caesarean delivery, she was fired. We managed to get through that period, but it was not easy. What happened to my wife is still happening today. We can do better. We must make sure there are protections so every Minnesotan is able to access and afford care for loved ones.

We have lived in Minnesota all of our lives. In Minnesota we care about each other. And we need to be able to care for our families. It's time for a strong paid family and medical leave policy. A good policy would have everyone pitching in, because everyone will benefit at least some in their life — new parents, caregivers to family members and aging parents, and people who are sick. Everyone would benefit from a paid family leave policy.

Martin Malecha, New Brighton

Perhaps the writer of the April 1 letter on U.S. Supreme Court nominations didn't have all the facts or chose not to present them.

Democrats did oppose the nomination of Judge Janice Rogers Brown — because of her record as a California Supreme Court justice. Her record showed her to have "a strong, persistent, and disturbing hostility toward affirmative action, civil rights, the rights of individuals with disabilities, workers' rights, and the fairness of the criminal justice system," as a letter to senators from the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights described it.

In addition, her opinions on civil rights and discrimination cases showed her to have a blatant disregard for judicial precedent.

It should not be a surprise to anyone that Democrats would not support such a nomination. It just happened that she was a Black woman.

What will the record show for why the majority of Republicans do not support the nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson?

Becky Carpenter, Minneapolis

An April 1 letter writer desperately wants the White Castle slider to be included among the "iconic dishes" of the Twin Cities. While I'm sure the writer has good intentions, I am scratching my head as to why this tiny hamburger would be included on such a list. There is nothing especially Minnesotan about a nationwide fast-food chain founded in Kansas.

Now, we can get into a debate about the quality of the White Castle slider, but what people do in their private lives in their own time is none of my business. Instead, readers, ask yourself this: If someone is coming to visit Minnesota for the first time, would you ever say, "Hey, check out White Castle while you're here?"

Nicholas Rea, Minneapolis

We want to hear from you. Send us your thoughts here.