Billionaire Tom Steyer wants to be California's next governor, and he just told voters exactly where he stands on one of the most contentious issues in youth athletics: biological males should compete in girls' high school sports. No qualifications. No hedging. Full-throated support.
Steyer made the case on the "I've Had It" podcast, hosted by Jennifer Welch, and repeated similar remarks to CBS Los Angeles, as Fox News reported. His argument boiled down to compassion for transgender youth, and a dismissal of the entire debate as a manufactured distraction by the political right.
The problem, of course, is that the girls who lose roster spots, playing time, scholarships, and championships to biological males are not a manufactured distraction. They are real athletes with real dreams. And Steyer's position tells them their competitive interests rank below the emotional comfort of a tiny fraction of students whose participation reshapes the playing field for everyone else.
Steyer did not leave room for nuance. On the podcast, he offered this:
"I'm totally in favor of [trans athletes in high school]."
He then framed opposition to the policy as cruelty toward vulnerable children, citing a suicide statistic he did not attribute to any study or data source:
"When you understand the vulnerability, the stress, the danger of being a trans kid, and you understand almost half of them try to commit suicide, then you think, 'We're gonna punish those kids, we're gonna cut them off from team sport.' It's like, no we're not."
And he went further, characterizing the entire national conversation about fairness in women's sports as a political weapon:
"To be clear, this is not some huge epidemic. This is a [right-wing attempt] to victimize and villainize already vulnerable and desperate people, and my heart completely goes out to the people who are so sad, feel so rejected, and so unaccepted that half of them would try to kill themselves."
Notice the rhetorical move. Steyer frames the debate so that anyone who raises the question of competitive fairness for girls is guilty of "victimizing" and "villainizing" transgender youth. There is no middle ground in his construction. You either agree with him or you are complicit in cruelty.
That framing may play well on a progressive podcast. It does not answer the straightforward question parents across the country keep asking: Is it fair for a biological male who has gone through male puberty to compete against girls?
Steyer is far from the only Democrat running to replace Gavin Newsom, whose term is expiring. The California governor's race features a deep Democratic bench, and Xavier Becerra has taken a commanding lead in recent polling. What's telling is how the other candidates handled the same question.
Former U.S. Representative Katie Porter echoed parts of Steyer's position, arguing that youth sports are intended to build character and teamwork rather than simply determine who is best. That formulation sidesteps the fairness issue entirely, as if competitive outcomes don't matter to the girl who trained all year and finished second to a biological male.
Becerra, the former HHS Secretary, took a legalistic approach. When pressed on existing California state law that allows students to participate in school activities based on gender identity, he urged officials to continue protecting certain classes in accordance with that law. Translation: the law is the law, and he is not about to challenge it.
San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan offered the most revealing answer of the bunch. He acknowledged the unfairness question directly, something most of his fellow Democrats avoided, but then pivoted to condemn those who raise it. Fox News reported Mahan's comments:
"That would be a conversation we would have, and I can imagine it being unfair."
He then added:
"But I also think that we are allowing ourselves to devolve into using that as a litmus test that is actually about demonizing difference, dividing people, scoring political points, and I'm just not going to be a governor who allows vulnerable people to be a punching bag."
So Mahan can "imagine" unfairness, but he won't do anything about it, because addressing it might look like a political litmus test. That's not leadership. That's a man who sees the problem, describes it accurately, and then walks away from it because the solution is politically inconvenient.
Former California State Assembly Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa came closest to a commonsense position among the Democrats. He dismissed the broader debate as a "non-issue", which is itself a dodge, but stated his personal belief that biological males who have undergone puberty should not compete in women's sports. He also said he opposes discrimination.
That position puts Villaraigosa closer to where most Americans actually stand on the question. But calling it a "non-issue" while stating a substantive position on it is its own kind of incoherence. If it's a non-issue, why take a side? And if you take a side, why minimize the debate?
The pattern among these Democrats is familiar. Steyer's stance on transgender athletes in girls' sports is the most aggressive, but even the candidates who see the problem refuse to propose a solution that might draw fire from progressive activists.
Former State Controller Betty Yee stressed the need to identify ways to promote fairness while ensuring everyone is included, a statement so carefully balanced it says almost nothing. State Superintendent Tony Thurmond took what Fox News described as "a more definitive approach in supporting transgender athletes," though no specifics were reported.
On the other side of the aisle, Republican candidates Steve Hilton and Chad Bianco both support overturning the existing California legislation that enables transgender athletes to compete in sports based on gender identity rather than biological sex. That is a clean, unambiguous position, and it aligns with the growing national consensus that women's sports categories exist for a reason.
California's existing state law allows students to participate in school activities based on their gender identity. Families have already sued the state attorney general over the policy, though the Fox News report did not provide details on those cases. The law remains in effect, and the gubernatorial race will determine whether the next governor defends it, expands it, or works to change it.
Steve Hilton has been vocal about what he calls Democratic "arrogance" in the governor's race, and the transgender athlete question is a case study. Democratic candidates either embrace a policy most voters find unfair, or they acknowledge the unfairness and refuse to act on it. Neither option inspires confidence.
California's gubernatorial candidates are set to debate on May 5 at East Los Angeles College Auditorium in Monterey Park, ahead of the June 2 primary election. The transgender athlete question will almost certainly come up again, and voters will be watching to see whether any of these candidates can offer more than emotional appeals and rhetorical dodges.
Steyer's argument rests on a statistic he repeated twice: that "almost half" of transgender youth attempt suicide. He cited no study, no data source, and no context for that figure. That doesn't mean the number is wrong. But building an entire policy position on an unattributed statistic, and using it to shut down debate about competitive fairness, is not serious governance. It is emotional leverage dressed up as compassion.
Steyer has poured enormous sums into California politics before, spending freely to shape the state's direction. Money can buy visibility. It cannot buy a coherent answer to the question every parent of a female athlete is asking: Why should my daughter's hard work count for less because Sacramento decided biology doesn't matter?
The broader dynamics of the Democratic primary, including questions about Newsom's maneuvering behind the scenes, add another layer of uncertainty. But the transgender athlete issue cuts through the noise because it is concrete, personal, and immediately felt by families across the state.
The California governor's race is shaping up as a test of whether Democratic candidates can hold progressive orthodoxy on gender and sports without paying a political price. Steyer is betting they can. Villaraigosa is hedging. Mahan sees the problem and flinches. And the Republican candidates are offering the only straightforward answer in the field.
None of this is happening in a vacuum. Across the country, states are passing laws to protect women's sports categories. Courts are hearing challenges. Parents are organizing. The question is not going away, no matter how many times candidates call it a "non-issue" or a "right-wing attempt."
Steyer told voters exactly who he is on this issue. The girls who lose because of his position didn't get a seat on the podcast.
