To the Editor:
Re "Tennessee's Trans Case Is About Age, Not Sex," by David French (column, Dec. 9):
As a trans woman in her late 30s who could not begin transition until my late 20s, I wish every day that I had been able do so before puberty. The amount of pain, energy and money I have had to spend to undo the effects of puberty -- both to be comfortable in my body and to pass as a cisgender woman -- is demoralizing.
I was able to leverage my considerable education into a decent paying job, save money for surgeries that have alleviated society's discomfort with my appearance and then hustle my way into a successful career in an industry that is tolerant of someone like me. Yet even with a good income, many in the trans community still turn to sex work to afford such gender-affirming care, and laws that limit choice will guarantee that more do so. To live as my authentic self, would I walk this profoundly painful path again? Yes, but children in 2025 should not have to suffer through a similar struggle.
To leave these weighty decisions to legislators instead of parents, their children and the medical community is dooming youngsters to, at best, hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical expenses in an effort to achieve a normal life. At worst, they will struggle with unemployment, homelessness, suicidality and death by their own hands or those of another.
I understand the fears people have: "Well, what if a child undergoes some type of intervention and regrets it later?" But in reality, the overwhelming majority of trans people who receive gender-affirming care, including minors, do better. Very few regret transitioning. I certainly don't.
Most parents and doctors have good judgment when it comes to the various interventions available. Are we talking about performing vaginoplasty or phalloplasty on toddlers? Absolutely not. Puberty blockers are a remarkably safe option that will help give trans kids, their parents and doctors more time than biology normally allows to make the right decision about the deeply nuanced and personal journey that is transition. I know plenty of adult cisgender women whose parents let them get breast implants at 16 for purely cosmetic reasons. Shouldn't a trans girl and her parents be granted the same latitude?
To those who rail about the lack of studies on gender-affirming care, should there be more? Yes, please; trans medicine is deeply underfunded because it does not yield a product that turns a profit. Where is the outrage about that?
So much energy has been devoted to this crusade against my community, under the guise of protecting minors. What about the danger from mass shootings in schools? From poverty, child abuse, hunger and homelessness? From social media? From obesity?
Let's not fool ourselves as to what this law is really about; it is a crusade against a minority group and the height of hypocrisy.
Autumn Trafficante
New York
To the Editor:
Leaving the merits of the Tennessee law to one side, I have concerns about the logic of David French's argument.
Consider this analogy: A state outlaws circumcision for infants and children, but not for adults, arguing that its intention is not to interfere with a religious rite practiced by Jews and Muslims, but only to protect youths incapable of giving consent from the potentially adverse physical and psychological consequences of the procedure.
To use a variation on Mr. French's formulation, the law is about age, not religion. Adult Jewish and Muslim men who wish to be circumcised may choose to undergo the procedure; thus their freedom to practice their religion is unaffected. Would Mr. French himself find such a law defensible?
Stephen L. Newman
Toronto
The writer is emeritus professor of politics at York University in Toronto.
To the Editor:
David French's column on the Tennessee trans treatment case and "What I Know About Americans' Anger at Health Care," by Helen Ouyang (Opinion guest essay, Dec. 12), underscore one central theme: Critical medical decisions are being made by ill-equipped and extraneous parties.
Whether an insurance company is determining what medical care will be covered, or governments are debating who should get that care, the bottom line is that both entities are no substitute for highly trained doctors who consult directly with patients. These decisions are medical -- full stop.
That is why we turn to doctors and why we do not march into the offices of our legislators or insurance providers for guidance. We also trust the guidance of professional organizations, including the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association and Endocrine Society, for the best medical guidance when it comes to gender-affirming and other care.
Neither Mr. French nor Dr. Ouyang could have highlighted any more clearly the interference with medical care by entities with ulterior motives. Families like mine want the government out of the exam room.
Andrea Platt
Lake Oswego, Ore.
Crime and Remorse
To the Editor:
I read with great interest "I Never Should Have Picked Up That Gun," by Christopher Blackwell (Opinion guest essay, "How to Live With Regret" series, Dec. 15).
Mr. Blackwell relates how as an 11-year-old he picked up a gun that led him on a path to crime and his eventual killing of someone. He is now serving 45 years in prison for that crime. What is remarkable to me is how he has accepted his fate, appears to be truly sorry for it and is attempting to repay his debt by mentoring fellow inmates about how violence is not a solution to their problems.
There are many issues here, such as the environment that he was brought up in, including being abused as a child and living in a place where violence was the norm, but he does not use them as an excuse. He freely admits he was wrong in what he did.
We are hearing so much about forgiveness, including for people who have committed egregious crimes but have been released from prison because they have admitted they were terribly wrong and are trying to help others.
It appears that Mr. Blackwell will continue to do good work in prison, but shouldn't he be a candidate for release? Surely, he would not be a menace to society and would continue his great work.
Joseph J. Pullaro
Franklin Lakes, N.J.
Ultraprocessed Foods
To the Editor:
Re "Why Ultraprocessed Foods Aren't Always Bad," by Nicola Guess (Opinion guest essay, nytimes.com, Dec. 16):
Sure, it's easy for many people to blame our health woes on ultraprocessed foods, but let's be honest -- those foods aren't sneaking into our carts; we're choosing them. And while "ultraprocessed" sounds scientific, it's a term that means little to most people. Ask someone what "junk food" is, and they'll give you a clear list.
After decades in practice as a dietitian, I've found that many people aren't avoiding healthier options like whole grains and beans out of resistance. They're intimidated by them and don't know how to easily use them. Instead of demonizing food categories, let's focus on education, empowerment, and making healthier choices easier and more accessible.
Bonnie Taub-Dix
New York
The writer is the author of "Read It Before You Eat It -- Taking You From Label to Table."
'Blatant Ageism'
To the Editor:
"How Old Is Too Old? Democrats Won't Say" (news article, Dec. 11) asks the wrong question relative to qualifications for any American president.
To focus exclusively on the individual's age, and not evaluate more important factors such as physical and mental health, smacks of blatant ageism -- discrimination based on age. Candidates for high elective office deserve to be judged on their policies, character, ability and mental fitness. There are many older adults who are still mentally sharp and competent to serve in the Oval Office, as well as in Congress, the courts or state offices.
As one television commercial asserts, "Age is just a number," so let's keep it "unlisted" among the qualifications for public office.
Richard T. Moore
Uxbridge, Mass.