For the editor:

Regarding “Lots of debate but little dialogue about transgender female athletes” (front page, May 29):

Efforts to exclude transgender people from sport are harmful to all women and girls. Athletes are more than bodies, hormones and a sex assigned at birth. Proximity to coaches, facilities, and parents who have money and time are the strongest predictors of success.

The International Olympic Committee, after consulting with leaders in medicine, athletics and human rights, said in new guidelines last year that there should be no presumed benefit due to variations gender, physical appearance or transgender status.

Lia Thomas followed all the protocols to be eligible to compete, as trans athletes have done for decades. Her success did not jeopardize the women’s sport or Title IX. Threats to women’s sport include lack of resources, unequal pay, abuse by coaches and doctors, and limited media coverage.

We need to include and welcome trans people wherever they want to be, and stop demonizing them in the name of protecting women. When everyone is welcome, everyone is a winner.

Anna Baet
New York
The author is research director for Athlete Ally, which aims to end homophobia and transphobia in sport.

For the editor:

I am a 1968 and 1972 Olympian. The appalling and callous disregard for the rights of biological women perpetrated by entities such as the ACLU, NCAA, Ivy League universities and others will destroy the gains for which we we fought in women’s sport.

Even our politicians are trying to pass a so-called equality law that would require male-to-female trans athletes to be allowed to compete against biological women.

Many aspiring Olympians would be denied a spot on a team by a trans woman like Lia Thomas. I’m not, as they call it, a “TERF” (trans-exclusive radical feminist), nor are most of those who demand fairness for biological women in sports and other spaces that women need. for themselves.

It is hardly radical to insist on science, common sense and fairness to biological girls and women in sport.

Francie KrakerGoodridge
Pinckney, Mich.

For the editor:

The reality is that the gender advantage varies from sport to sport. Thus, the recent decision by the International Olympic Committee to allow individual sports associations to determine policy is clearly more appropriate than a one-size-fits-all policy.

Myron Genel
Woodbridge, Conn.
The author, Emeritus Professor of Pediatric Endocrinology at Yale University School of Medicine, has served as an advisor to the International Olympic Committee.

For the editor:

While I recognize the bravery of trans athletes who come out to compete in arenas in which they are not always welcome, there is precedent for players with disabilities outside of golf, which is mentioned in your article. Mountain bike racing separates riders by age and weight to even out the competition and give everyone a chance to win.

There is nothing new in the categorization of competitions to take into account the advantages of age, gender, etc. .

Marguerite Flaherty
Berkeley, California.

For the editor:

Regarding “Not in His Backyard” (Sunday Business, June 5):

Your story on “NIMBYism” notes that active owners reject the epithet. Amen to that. We are stakeholders. Faced with zoning changes, we ask ourselves questions.

Is the zoning change or deviation justified? Who will be moved? What is the effect on traffic and the environment? What improvements need to be made to roads, sidewalks, schools, water and electricity to support change? How will the city/county/state monitor and enforce the terms of the waiver or regulation?

To our pain, we usually get bogus assurances from underfunded agencies that already fail to enforce existing regulations. Homeowners pay taxes and invest money and equity in the upkeep of what is for many our most prized material asset. And yes, we host block parties, help start library programs, and contribute to our communities.

It is ironic and infuriating that the same pious people who delicately label the homeless as “homeless” are so ready to vilify stakeholders with legitimate concerns as NIMBYs and so quick to dismiss their civic engagement as NIMBYism. .

Shelley Paris
Los Angeles

For the editor:

Re “I married the wrong person, and I’m so glad I did”, by Tish Harrison Warren (Opinion, nytimes.com, June 5):

While I enjoyed this thoughtful article, as a couples therapist I take issue with several points. Research indicates that common reasons for divorce are conflict, lack of commitment, and adultery, not a desire for personal fulfillment or a more meaningful life.

Moreover, more recent research than the study cited in the article shows that unhappy women who divorce are actually happier after they leave. The couples I see in my practice are generally distressed by the decision to separate, even when it is clearly in their best interests to do so.

Marriage is changing due to changing gender norms and expectations and more women having the financial capacity to leave unhappy relationships.

As a long-married person, I agree with Ms. Warren that enduring a flawed but loving marriage is filled with personal growth and rewards. At the same time, personal happiness is a perfectly valid reason for leaving a painful relationship. We are fortunate to live in a time when it is acceptable to do so.

Tonya Lester
brooklyn