Who Is Tom Steyer and What Is He Running For?
Tom Steyer is a California billionaire and Democratic candidate running to replace outgoing California Governor Gavin Newsom as the state’s next governor. Steyer is part of a crowded Democratic field competing to keep control of the governorship after Newsom’s term expires. Other candidates mentioned in the race include Katie Porter, Xavier Becerra, Antonio Villaraigosa, Betty Yee, and Tony Thurmond. Republicans Steve Hilton and Chad Bianco are running on an opposing platform that supports overturning laws enabling transgender participation in girls’ sports.
As the campaign intensifies, Steyer has become one of the most outspoken Democratic voices defending the participation of transgender athletes in girls’ high school sports. For critics, however, the position raises a question that feels increasingly impossible to ignore: if biological males are free to compete in girls’ athletics, what exactly remains of the purpose of women’s sports?
Steyer’s Position: “I’m Totally in Favor”
Steyer’s position is not subtle. During an appearance on the “I’ve Had It” podcast, he stated plainly, “I’m totally in favor of trans athletes in high school.” He framed the issue around emotional well-being and vulnerability, arguing that transgender youth face extraordinary mental and emotional struggles.
Steyer explained:
“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… we’re gonna punish those kids, we’re gonna cut them off from team sport. It’s like, no we’re not.”
Steyer also dismissed opposition to transgender participation in girls’ sports as politically motivated, calling it “a right-wing attempt” to victimize transgender individuals. He argued that the issue has been exaggerated and insisted, “This is not some huge epidemic.” Instead, he described transgender youth as vulnerable people deserving protection and inclusion.
On social media, Steyer reinforced the broader philosophy behind his position, writing: “Trans people deserve to have a life where they feel accepted and valued. That’s why days like today, Trans Day of Visibility, are more important than ever.” He added, “We have a government that wants to hurt the LGBTQ community, and if we don’t stand up for our people, they win.”
The Fairness Question Democrats Keep Running Into
The controversy surrounding Steyer’s comments is not merely about compassion or inclusion. Critics argue it is about fairness, opportunity, and the very reason women’s sports exist in the first place.
Girls’ and women’s sports were created precisely because biological differences matter in athletic competition. The purpose was to give female athletes a fair chance to compete, excel, and earn recognition on a level playing field. For decades, opportunities for girls expanded through school athletics, creating scholarship opportunities, personal development, and pathways to college and careers.
Critics of Steyer’s position argue that allowing biological males into girls’ sports undermines those gains. If biological differences no longer matter, they ask, why separate sports by sex at all?
The concern becomes especially serious at the high school level, where athletic performance can influence scholarships and admissions opportunities. In competitive sports, fractions of seconds, inches, or slightly greater strength can determine who makes a varsity roster, who earns a medal, or who catches the attention of college recruiters.
Even some Democrats in California’s gubernatorial race appeared uncomfortable fully embracing Steyer’s framing. Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa dismissed the controversy as a “non-issue” but still stated his personal belief that biological males who have gone through puberty should not compete in women’s sports.
San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan also acknowledged concerns about fairness. While criticizing people who use the issue as a political weapon, he admitted that if a biological male competed against his daughter in soccer, “I can imagine it being unfair.”
Those comments reveal a political tension Democrats increasingly face. On one hand, many leaders want to emphasize compassion, inclusion, and protection for vulnerable people. On the other hand, many Americans instinctively see athletic competition as a question of fairness.
Who Benefits and Who Pays the Price?
For critics, one of the harshest realities is this: the boys most likely to compete in girls’ sports are often not elite male athletes capable of dominating boys’ competition. Instead, opponents argue, the system risks creating incentives where athletes who cannot excel against other boys suddenly gain competitive advantages in girls’ divisions.
That argument is particularly emotional for families of female athletes who train for years hoping to win roster spots, championships, or scholarships. A lost starting position or missed podium finish is not merely symbolic. It can affect real opportunities.
To those critics, Steyer’s comments sound like a complete reversal of the original purpose of girls’ sports. The concern is not simply inclusion. It is whether inclusion for one group comes at the expense of fairness for another.
At the same time, Steyer and his allies argue that excluding transgender students from athletics inflicts emotional harm and social isolation on young people already facing serious struggles. From their perspective, participation is about belonging, dignity, and protecting vulnerable teenagers from rejection.
A Political Litmus Test With Real Consequences
What makes Steyer’s remarks politically explosive is that they touch one of the most emotionally charged issues in modern politics: the conflict between inclusion and competitive fairness.
Even among Democrats, responses vary widely. Some, like Katie Porter, emphasized youth sports as places to build teamwork and character rather than simply determine winners and losers. Others stressed fairness concerns while still opposing discrimination. Meanwhile, Republican candidates Steve Hilton and Chad Bianco openly support reversing laws that allow transgender participation in girls’ sports.
For critics, however, the issue comes down to a blunt question: if society decides biological sex no longer matters in athletic competition, what meaningful distinction remains between girls’ sports and open competition?
Steyer clearly believes compassion and inclusion should come first – fairness for girls should take a back seat. This clash is no longer theoretical. In California’s governor race, it is now front and center.
