High Street retailer Marks and Spencer (M&S) has been criticised over the design of part of their girls' underwear range.
Shoppers have been angered by leopard print pants which have appeared in the 'girls shorts' section of the shop's website, the Manchester Evening News reports. The item has been called "skimpy" and "ridiculous" by some browsing the online aisles.
But M&S has come out to say that there has been an error on the website. It adds that the clothing should have appeared under "shorts".
Read more: Biscoff KitKat Chunky hits Tesco's shelves across the UK
Campaign group Let Clothes Be Clothes - who want to end gender stereotyping in childrenswear clothing design and market - suggested M&S needs to have a rethink of what it offers as the item slotted in well in the section of the website.
The campaign group shared a picture of the underwear on its Facebook page. It also placed another picture of boys underpants next to it.
The post said: "Girls 'shorts' opposite boys 'underwear' at Marks and Spencer - what is the difference? If you have a problem with boys wearing just their pants as 'clothing,' then you should be asking why it's acceptable for girls."
Acknowledging the fact it was probably due to a website error, the Facebook post added: "These do seem to be in the wrong section and having checked again, are sold online as shorts AND underwear. The problem is they look perfectly at home in a collection defined by being really short and really tight.
"Don't get me wrong, I don't mind either of those things - but I want choice, and I find it disturbing girls choices are defined by showing as much body as possible, the same as women."
But dozens of parents commented on the post, with many complaining over the styles of shorts marketed at girls. One mum said: "My daughter won’t wear shorts from the girls section as they’re always too short to ride her bike or go on the zip line.
"She said it hurts her legs as they always rub on the seat. I don’t understand why they make them so short. My son still fits into his ones from last year. They’re so much longer and have way more room in them, plus pockets."
Another added: "My daughter is 10 and any 'girl' shorts are so short and tight and even regular ones look a bit sexy as she is developing curves. And, probably her biggest peeve is no pockets!!! Why can't girls get sun safe, comfortable shorts with growing room?"
Francesca Mallen, of Let Clothes Be Clothes, told the Manchester Evening News: "I think Marks and Spencer have added those particular 'shorts' to the wrong section, but it raises an important point about how much like underwear some shorts aimed at girls have become. Like a lot of parents, I want choice, and don't actually mind short shorts - if there's choice.
"For going down slides and climbing trees, tiny shorts aren't ideal - plus sometimes kids need extra sun coverage too. We would ask M&S to think again about how they sell children's clothes and just give the choice of kids of different lengths, colours and designs (with pockets) for all children."
M&S has now removed the item from the shorts section and told us it was "a genuine error" because the product name contains the word "shorts". A spokeswoman said it sells "a real range of lengths and styles" within the children's shorts range.
