Get Premium
Dark mode theme is available exclusively for premium users. Learn more about the benefits of subscribing.
No fees, cancel anytime.
Dark Mode 
No fees, cancel anytime 
then open in external browser
and click "Open in External Browser" 
A 67-year-old trans woman in England staged a silent protest during a swimming competition when she was not allowed to compete against cis women.
Anne Isabella Coombes, who has fully transitioned, swam in a men’s bathing suit with her breasts exposed during the competition.
Previously, she had been swimming in the women’s category, but was told in 2023 she would have to start competing against cis men due to policy changes from Swim England, the national governing body for swimming in England.
Highlights
- A 67 year old trans woman wears a men’s swimming costume during a competition, exposing her breasts
- Anne Isabella Coombes from Reading, England said she wore the men’s costume because she was forced to compete in the men’s category, and not the women’s
- The issue of trans female athletes has been making headlines in the country since the highest court declared that the definition of ‘woman’ is based on someone’s biological s*x
RELATED:
Anne Isabella Coombes had previously swam in the women’s category
Image credits: Arisa Chattasa/Unsplash (Not the actual photo)
As described in a lengthy article in the Reading Chronicle from Reading, England, Coombes staged the protest during the Cornwall County Masters swimming competition.
The article says Coombes, who transitioned during the COVID lockdown when she was 62, had been swimming against women during the 2022 and 2023 competition years.
Image credits: Reading Chronicle
However, in late 2023, Swim England created a new ‘open’ category, wherein trans females and nonbinary competitors were to swim against cis men.
According to Swim England, the move was meant to “negate post-puberty transgender females’ biological level of performance advantage post-transition,” the organization wrote.
In an earlier competition against cis women, Coombes came in second
Image credits: anne.coombes1
When she competed against cis females, Coombes told the Chronicle, she came in second place during the masters in Sheffield.
“The woman who came first was a whole length ahead of me. She broke the European record; she’s an excellent swimmer,” Coombes said.
“I’m trying to emphasise that this is not a trans person coming in and nicking places from other people,” she continued.
But soon thereafter, Swim England would publish its new policies regarding its ‘open’ swim category.
“Not allowed to do that”: Coombes refused to be outed in women’s suit 
Image credits: Hussain Badshah/Unsplash (Not the actual photo)
The ‘Open’ category refers to athletes with a birth s*x of male, trans or non-binary competitors, and any competitor not eligible for the female category, the Chronicle says.
When Coombes inquired about which swimming costume she should wear, she says she was told to wear a women’s costume.
@tmesis_petrichor_cadenceIs this why they call it breaststroke?♬ original sound – Izzy
“They confirmed that I need to wear a female swimming costume despite having to compete with the men, which ‘outs’ me as a woman who is transgender.
“I explained to the person on the phone that they are not allowed to do that, and he didn’t have an answer,” she told the Chronicle.
Coombes’ protest message is that “trans people are not a threat when it comes to sports”
Image credits: Reading Chronicle
Coombes decided not to swim again until the most recent protest. She decided to protest now “to show the world that this policy isn’t thought through, and it’s meant to hit trans people and nobody else,” she told the Chronicle.
“There are many who say I should only compete against men because I have a man’s advantage, and that just isn’t the case. I want to make it clear through this protest that trans people are not a threat when it comes to sport,” she concluded.
Going forward, Swim England has told Ms. Coombes that if she intends to wear a male swimming costume at the next masters, it is up to the referee to decide if her costume is “in good moral taste.”
If it is determined not to be, she may be disqualified.
UK defines “woman” based on biology: experts ask if there’s a better way
Image credits: tmesis_petrichor_cadence
@tmesis_petrichor_cadenceMisgendered in the Swimming Competition Entries♬ original sound – Izzy
The new Swim England policies come on the heels of the landmark ruling from the UK’s highest court about the legal definition of “woman.”
The court ruled that the word ‘woman’ is based on biological s*x, which prompted massive backlash from LGBTQ+ rights groups.
Image credits: Karollyne Videira Hubert/Unsplash (Not the actual photo)
The larger debate around trans female athletes centers around the question of whether trans women can compete in female categories without their biological s*x, giving them an unfair advantage or presenting a threat of injury to other competitors.
Image credits: America First Policy Institute
During an interview with the BBC, Joanna Harper, a sports scientist and transgender female, said the question is rather complicated.
“The question isn’t ‘Do trans women have advantages?’ but instead, ‘Can trans women and women compete against one another in meaningful competition?’ Truthfully, the answer isn’t definitive yet.”
Image credits: icons_women
Harper gave an example of left-handed athletes having an advantage over right-handed athletes in sports like fencing.
“40% of elite fencers are left-handed versus 10% of the population is left-handed. But right-handed fencers and left-handed fencers can engage in meaningful competition despite the advantages that left-handed fencers have,” she said.
Netizens are once again split on the hot button issue
Image credits: Riley_Gaines_
A lot of online messages were negative.
“Good for him… I’m sure that was one of the best promotions ever to scare children away from going trans.”
“I dont get it.. It’s a man swimming with other men,” said someone pretending to be confused.
Meanwhile, others were supportive.
“Brave woman. I’m proud of her,” said one person.
“Good for her for standing up for herself and showcasing their contradictions in a provocative way,” said another.
Comments online range from supportive to critical
Poll Question
Total votes ·
Thanks! Check out the results:
Total votes ·
Newsletter
Subscribe to Access
Exclusive Polls
By entering your email and clicking Subscribe, you're agreeing to let us send you customized marketing messages about us and our advertising partners. You are also agreeing to our Privacy Policy.
Thank you! You've successfully subscribed to newsletters!
What do you think ?
Vinny DaPooh 5 months ago
Mens 100m freestyle WR is 46.40. Women's is 51.71. The top woman wouldn't make it into the 8 athlete final heat in the men's division. That's not a dig on women. It's pure biology for people that went through puberty as a male.
and_a_touch_of_the_’tism 5 months ago
I don’t actually totally disagree, BUT, these rules often exclude even trans women who never went through male puberty.
Load More Replies...
Colleen Halloran 5 months ago
Trans people should compete in their own catagory. You can't support one group and at the same time disadvantage another.
Forrest Hobbs 5 months ago (edited)
Hmm - the article is a bit misleading when it says "UK defines “woman” based on biology". If you look into the detail, it turns out UK law doesn't have a proper definition of "woman". The recent Supreme Court judgement dealt only with the meaning of the word "woman" in the UK's Equality Act 2010 - and concluded that: "the terms “man”, “woman” and “séx” in the EA 2010 refer to biological séx". The thing is, the ruling doesn't define what it means by "biological séx" (beyond excluding gender recognition certificates as being something that defines a person's séx). The full ruling does scold Parliament for not sorting out the issue with legislation when it was asked to do so... It's a mess. https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_press_summary_8a42145662.pdf and https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
Forrest Hobbs 5 months ago (edited)
Lest anyone mistake my position on this: I reckon the whole messy business should never have gone to the Supreme Court because Parliament should have dealt with the issue. Parliament didn't, because the government decided to ignore the Equality and Human Right's Commission's request for it to sort things out, so the Supreme Court had to deal with it and come up with a ruling based on the law as written and existing legal precedent. The result is deeply unsatisfactory. I don't have any solutions, but: the Supreme Court did do its job properly. You can't blame them for the outcome - that's down to the wording of the existing law and the refusal of the government to deal with the matter by proposing new legislation.
Load More Replies...
Vinny DaPooh 5 months ago
Mens 100m freestyle WR is 46.40. Women's is 51.71. The top woman wouldn't make it into the 8 athlete final heat in the men's division. That's not a dig on women. It's pure biology for people that went through puberty as a male.
and_a_touch_of_the_’tism 5 months ago
I don’t actually totally disagree, BUT, these rules often exclude even trans women who never went through male puberty.
Load More Replies... Colleen Halloran 5 months ago
Trans people should compete in their own catagory. You can't support one group and at the same time disadvantage another.
Forrest Hobbs 5 months ago (edited)
Hmm - the article is a bit misleading when it says "UK defines “woman” based on biology". If you look into the detail, it turns out UK law doesn't have a proper definition of "woman". The recent Supreme Court judgement dealt only with the meaning of the word "woman" in the UK's Equality Act 2010 - and concluded that: "the terms “man”, “woman” and “séx” in the EA 2010 refer to biological séx". The thing is, the ruling doesn't define what it means by "biological séx" (beyond excluding gender recognition certificates as being something that defines a person's séx). The full ruling does scold Parliament for not sorting out the issue with legislation when it was asked to do so... It's a mess. https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_press_summary_8a42145662.pdf and https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
Forrest Hobbs 5 months ago (edited)
Lest anyone mistake my position on this: I reckon the whole messy business should never have gone to the Supreme Court because Parliament should have dealt with the issue. Parliament didn't, because the government decided to ignore the Equality and Human Right's Commission's request for it to sort things out, so the Supreme Court had to deal with it and come up with a ruling based on the law as written and existing legal precedent. The result is deeply unsatisfactory. I don't have any solutions, but: the Supreme Court did do its job properly. You can't blame them for the outcome - that's down to the wording of the existing law and the refusal of the government to deal with the matter by proposing new legislation.
Load More Replies...
Related on Bored Panda
23
32