'I am so done with the misogyny', Samara Gill raged as she tore up a copy of Glamour's cover, and a culture war erupted.
Glamour UK's decision to honour nine trans activists as part of its 2025 'Women of the Year' package has provoked fierce backlash from commentators and public figures, crystallised in a viral clip in which TalkTV contributor Gill dramatically ripped the magazine and denounced the choice as an insult to biological women.
The cover, a group portrait under the slogan 'Protect The Dolls', was published by Glamour on 29 October 2025 and accompanied by profiles and interviews celebrating trans artists and campaigners. The magazine framed the feature as a response to rising threats to trans rights in the UK.
Gill's intervention was filmed for TalkTV and circulated widely on social media on 31 October, where she is shown shredding a physical copy of the magazine while calling the editorial decision 'misogynist' and declaring she was 'so done' with what she called the sidelining of cisgender women. Gill named a swathe of high-profile critics — from broadcaster Julia Hartley-Brewer to author J.K. Rowling — and asked rhetorically where established women were in the magazine's choices.
What Glamour Actually Said and Who Was Honoured
Glamour described its 2025 Women of the Year winners as 'trailblazers' and explicitly cited the decision as an effort to uplift under-represented voices amid a period of heightened hostility towards trans people.
The magazine's feature profiles nine trans and non-binary figures; spanning activism, fashion, and media, and includes interviews that highlight their work on visibility, access to healthcare, and community safety. Glamour also used the cover image to spotlight the 'Protect The Dolls' slogan, a phrase that has been widely adopted this year as an expression of solidarity within parts of the LGBTQ+ community.
At the awards ceremony and across the package, honourees emphasised lived experience, campaigning work and the tangible projects they lead, from grassroots support networks to public-health advocacy.
Glamour's editorial framing is explicit, the spotlight is intended to counteract increasing threats and demonisation faced by trans people in public discourse. The feature, therefore, sits at the intersection of activism and cultural recognition rather than being a conventional beauty or celebrity roundup.
The Backlash: Voices and Stakes
The reaction was swift and polarised. Author J.K. Rowling posted on X on 30 October that she grew up with magazines that told girls to be 'thinner and prettier' and argued that 'now mainstream women's magazines tell girls that men are better women than they are'.
I grew up in an era when mainstream women’s magazines told girls they needed to be thinner and prettier.
— J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling) October 30, 2025
Now mainstream women’s magazines tell girls that men are better women than they are. pic.twitter.com/ybEFr8XdSv
Her post amplified an existing row and was directly referenced by Gill in the TalkTV segment. Glamour's own response was terse and defiant on social platforms, responding to critics with a mixture of editorial defence and sharp retorts from its social channels.
Supporters of Glamour's decision, including several of the honourees themselves, said the coverage was overdue recognition of activists doing concrete work to protect marginalised people.
At the awards, Munroe Bergdorf and others used speeches to condemn what they described as the demonisation of trans people and to argue that representation in mainstream women's media matters for safety and access to services.
That defence highlights the human stakes behind a magazine cover, honourees say that public visibility can translate into funding, legal attention and safer access to healthcare for vulnerable groups.
Why the Row Matters Beyond Clicks
This dispute is not only about a single cover; it is a flashpoint in a broader national debate about gender, rights, and the role of mainstream media in shaping public ideas about womanhood.
Glamour's editorial decision arrives amid volatile policy and cultural discussions in 2025 about legal definitions, healthcare access and social recognition for trans people, issues that campaigners warn have immediate consequences for safety and wellbeing.
Conservatives and women's-rights commentators who oppose the inclusion argue their concerns are about preserving sex-based rights and single-sex spaces; advocates for trans recognition counter that refusal to acknowledge trans women heightens marginalisation and risk.
The magazine's choice, and the visceral public reactions such as Gill's, crystallise those competing frameworks in a way that has already moved from social feeds into political debate. Samara Gill's shredded copy may have been a dramatic image, but the debate it triggered reaches far beyond one magazine rack.
