CA Gov Candidate Tom Steyer Calls Out Dems Capitulating On Trans People: "I'm Totally In Favor Of Trans Athletes"
This is one of the most significant statements from a candidate in the CA governors race in support of trans people.
In recent months, political operatives embracing anti-trans narratives under the Democratic banner—organizations like the Searchlight Institute and Third Way—have encouraged Democrats to abandon transgender people in pursuit of electoral gains. One of the chief places this capitulation has played out is California, where Gov. Gavin Newsom has repeatedly thrown transgender people under the bus. This week, however, one of the leading Democratic candidates to succeed him pushed back. Appearing on Jennifer Welch's progressive podcast "I've Had It," Tom Steyer directly stated that he supports transgender participation in sports and rejected the bans that have served as the Republican Party's launching point for nearly every other anti-trans attack. His position stands in sharp contrast both to Newsom's record and to that of his leading Democratic opponent, former Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who in a recent interview offered a notably more hedged response when asked the same question.
"How important is it for you to platform universal human rights, to stand up against Islamophobia, antisemitism, transphobia, anti-Black racism—all the same, that they're all interconnected?" Welch asked. "Because I see some politicians, particularly Democrats, that are capitulating, mainstream centrist Democrats, capitulating to some right-wing narratives like, 'Oh, we shouldn't talk about the bathroom,' or we see this rise here and we're not going to squash this one down. To me, they're all intricately connected, and I think diversity protects us and helps us cooperate and helps make a better place for all of us to live."
Steyer responded with a full-throated defense of transgender youth—and, specifically, of transgender athletes. "I'm totally in favor of trans athletes in high school," he said. "I think when you understand the vulnerability, the stress, the danger of being a trans kid, and you understand that almost half of them try to commit suicide. And then you think we're going to punish those kids. We're going to cut them off from team sports. We're going to cut them off from participating in the community. We're going to cut them off from fun. It's like, no, we're not. No, we're not." He went on: "As someone who played sports my whole life and loves sports and loves playing sports, there are more important things than whether you start on your high school basketball team. And that is standing up for people who are under a threat of death."
See the full interview here (trans remarks at the 7:00 mark)
Steyer’s remarks stand in stark contrast to those of Gov. Gavin Newsom, the man he is running to succeed. In March 2025, Newsom told late conservative activist Charlie Kirk that transgender participation in girls’ sports was “deeply unfair.” He has since repeated and defended the position multiple times, including in interviews with CNN’s Dana Bash—where he urged Democrats to be more “culturally normal” and stop focusing on “pronouns and identity politics”—and with Katie Couric, where he said he could not see a way for trans women to fairly compete and claimed, without evidence, that there had been “multiple instances” of cisgender athletes being “displaced” by trans competitors in California. Newsom has also matched his rhetoric with action, vetoing multiple pro-LGBTQ+ bills in California, including a measure that would have required insurers to cover and pharmacists to prescribe up to 12 months of hormone therapy at a time. He even, in an interview with right-wing podcaster Shawn Ryan, appeared to entertain the idea that one should not transition until 26 years of age.
Steyer’s leading Democratic opponent in the gubernatorial race, former state Attorney General Xavier Becerra, has been similarly cagey on trans people. In a recent interview with CBS News California Investigates correspondent Julie Watts, Becerra opened with the line “There’s nothing in the constitution that says that you are entitled to play a sport,” and quickly pivoted to the argument that “governing bodies in those particular sports decide who plays in the sport.” When Watts pressed him on California’s own state law requiring schools to allow transgender students to participate in line with their gender identity, Becerra replied, “I’m not sure, I’d have to look at the way you’ve read the law.” He then endorsed bans on trans athletes based on “who you are,” stating: “If the rules don’t let you play in that sport just because of who you are, then you don’t get to play in that sport.”
See Steyer vs. Becerra’s responses to that particular interview here:
Notably, transgender participation in school sports is explicitly protected under California law and has been for more than a decade. State statute requires that students be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs and activities, including athletic teams, consistent with their gender identity. Any future California governor will be sworn to uphold that law.
Steyer’s statement comes at a critical point in this race. With California's June 2 primary one week away, Becerra has been losing ground while Steyer has been gaining it. An Echelon Insights poll released this week shows Steyer pulling ahead of Becerra outright, 18% to 15%. Republican Steve Hilton—the former Fox News commentator and ex-adviser to British Prime Minister David Cameron—currently leads the field, though California's top-two primary system advances the top two finishers to November regardless of party, meaning Hilton is widely expected to take one of the two slots. The main fight will be between Steyer and Becerra, and the winner of this race is likely to be the favorite to win California. In the meantime, transgender people will be watching the candidates to see if they will break from Newsom’s capitulation, or continue in the same way.



This is the kind of energy we need.
I love to hear it. Thank you for the reporting.
I see a trap to this we should avoid and want not to exploit even temporarily.
The word testosterone did not come up.
For all athletes desiring to participate in girl's or women's categories, a past atypically high effective testosterone blood level is an athletic advantage over other female athletes whose T blood levels are more female typical.
While I can certainly believe that for youth or for some sports, less than the two years on effective HRT is required for "fairness" ( T suppression is the relevant part ), like what the IOC required from 2004 to 2018, is a good starting point for medically sane policy -- for all athletes wanting to participate in women's categories, whether transgender or cisgender.
We are not required to like the fact that male typical T levels provide an advantage which is readily apparent in most sports, and that anabolic steroid supplementation is prohibited in sports generally for like reason.
But it is so.
Recent overviews demonstrating MtF athletes have no advantage, but may be at a slight disadvantage compared to cisgender athletes, are overviews of data from athletes who were on T suppression.
For MtF athletes who avoid a masculine puberty starting with the start of Tanner 2, no such rules have any applicability. For those of us who underwent a typical masculine puberty, they have full applicability.
Everyone wants to include nuance, from the standpoint of biology -- to a first order and likely second order of things -- that's the nuance.