How a single unconfirmed complaint became a media weapon, and why trans allies need to hold the line, not fuel the fire.
Scrolling through socials this week feels like watching a fire stoked from both ends, and in the middle is Marks & Spencer. Post after post calling out Marks & Spencer, condemning them for an ‘apology’ over an alleged incident involving a trans employee working in the bra-fitting department with a teenage customer, and fury at their supposed “betrayal” of the trans community. And I get it. It feels like yet another company quietly caving under pressure, apologising for a trans employee daring to exist near a teenager in the bra section. But before we let the rage run away with us, let’s take a breath.
Because as of now, there’s only one source for this entire story: The Telegraph.
Not by the company. Not by the alleged family involved, apart from a new account on Twitter claiming to be the girl’s mother. Not even by a court, a complaint, or a shred of publicly verifiable evidence. Just a single-source story dropped by The Telegraph, a paper with a long and shameful track record of manufacturing transphobic headlines out of thin air. The Express followed suit with their usual lack of rigour. And yet, this hearsay has somehow exploded across timelines as if it’s gospel.
This is a familiar pattern. A vague but emotionally charged story is seeded in an anti-rights outlet, usually involving a trans person, a young woman or child, and the undertone that suggests perversion. The goal isn’t clarity; it’s chaos. Let it spread, let it polarise, and let the pressure build until the target—in this case, a retailer—is forced to choose between standing by their staff or appeasing a manufactured moral panic. It’s been effective before, and they’re clearly betting it’ll work again.
The complaint itself is telling. The anonymous mother claimed her 14-year-old daughter felt “freaked out” and “recoiled” when approached by allegedly a “transgender ‘woman’, ie, a biological male”, in the lingerie section. “This is obviously the case: he is at least 6ft 2in tall”, she wrote, framing height as some so-called biological evidence of inappropriateness. This implies a gendered stereotype that tall women must not exist, yet statistically, over 1% of cis women are over 6ft tall.
Even if some of it is true, if there was a trans employee working in the lingerie section, who politely asked if help was needed, and a customer took offence. There was no bra fitting. The staff member wasn’t one of the employees responsible for doing fittings. No one was coerced into anything. No wrongdoing has been established. The only ‘evidence‘ is the word of one anonymous mother, writing in to complain about the mere presence of a trans woman—whom she describes repeatedly and pointedly as a “biological male”—offering customer service in a retail department.
The Independent piece cuts through the noise with clarity and compassion. Victoria Richards—a cis woman—reframes the entire incident by pointing out the obvious: teenagers are always awkward in bra departments, and discomfort isn’t the same as danger. She questions why M&S apologised at all and highlights how prejudice is being repackaged as “concern”. Her daughter’s reaction, “Why is this a story?”, says it all.
Had the person offering to help my 13-year-old daughter in the M&S undies department been trans, I would have had no problem with it – and crucially, neither would she. How do I know? I asked her.
My daughter’s exact response (with the inevitable bit of exasperated sighing) to being helped, or even fitted, was: “I’d hate anyone measuring me, Mummy. Why would it make any difference if they were trans?”
When I explained the nuances of this particular situation, she added a cutting: “Why is this a story?”
What M&S actually sent back wasn’t a policy statement or a disciplinary action—it was a routine customer service reply from March, five months ago, apologising for the customer’s feelings. A soft, meaningless, generic apology for “distress”. It only became “public” because the anti-rights campaigners made it so.
And now, the demands are rolling in: that M&S ban trans women from working in lingerie sections. Those policies should be rewritten to ensure trans staff are treated as a risk to women and girls. That their mere existence in customer-facing roles is problematic. That trans women, many of whom rely on retail jobs like this to survive, are being pushed out of work entirely.
Let’s not pretend we haven’t seen this playbook before.
So why are some of us so quick to believe The Telegraph, just because it suits the moment?
They manufacture outrage, count on both sides to bite, and then pressure institutions to make decisions under fire. And right now, some trans people and allies are being pulled into a moral panic of The Telegraph’s making.
And who stands to lose if M&S feels forced to respond?
Not the mother who said her daughter “recoiled” at the sight of a tall woman. Not the anti-rights hate group Sex Matters, who inserted themselves into the story with their usual blend of thinly veiled hate and faux concern for “decency”.
The person most at risk here is the unnamed employee, who may very well be a trans woman just doing her job. Someone who has now had her dignity, job security, and privacy dragged into the national press without even being consulted.
I’m not saying don’t be angry. I’m saying be smart with it.
Because the truth is, M&S hasn’t changed anything. They’re still allowing staff to work across departments. They’re still saying customers can choose who they feel comfortable being served by, which is a reasonable position. They haven’t publicly distanced themselves from trans inclusion. They haven’t said trans women can’t work in lingerie. As far as we know, they haven’t bowed to the pressure yet.
So what we should be doing is making clear that if they’re being targeted for standing by their trans staff, they deserve support. That no one should be forced to choose between a retail job and their identity. That being tall, trans, and polite isn’t a scandal.
And yes, we should be writing to M&S. We should be letting them know when we’ve had positive, respectful, inclusive experiences in their stores. If you’ve been helped by a kind, trans-inclusive staff member, tell them. If you’ve felt seen, or safe, or welcomed, tell them. The bigots flood their inboxes with abuse; don’t let them be the only voices M&S hears.
We need their support, not because we’re demanding it under threat, but because it’s the right thing to do.
That’s how you counter manufactured outrage.
Not by joining it.