Macrons to offer 'scientific' court evidence to prove Brigitte is a woman, lawyer says

So, just so I’m clear: we’re saying that at some point back in the 1960s/70s, and long before hormone therapy or gender reassignment surgery was either mainstream or effective, the male Brigitte managed to reassign so successfully that none of her teacher colleagues, her friends, her husband, nor her three children, have ever realised she was really a man. A random Frenchwoman was convinced to be a secret surrogate, the entirety of the medical staff involved with this saga have been sworn to silence, and her parents, for reasons known only to themselves, agreed to pretend they actually had a daughter as well as a son. And all of this just in case Brigitte one day went on to marry an Emmanuel Macron, who didn’t even exist at the time she would have reassigned?

What a roller coaster.

As an aside, I think we’ve established where all the jobs to replace the ones AI will make redundant are going to come from: millions of guards patrolling the entrance to the toilets all over the world, demanding to check digital IDs proving we’re women.

You don’t think POTUS saying that the wife of the president of France is hot is inappropriate? Crikey

I don't think it's something he really cares about. Hes got more important things to worry about. Besides I'm not sure saying someone is hot is sexually inappropriate, it's usually what most of us would like to hear.

Trump said that Brigritte Macron was hot? Lol. Trump is very reliable in some ways.

I'm interested to know how Republicans and Trump supporters square this extremely bizarre theory with the fact that when Trump first met her, he made one of his usual gross and inappropriate remarks about how hot she was.

Are we to believe that this designing "man" has managed to deceive Trump into being sexually inappropriate about "him"? Is that really something Trump would want the whole world to know?

I imagine so. So CO might win initially (on lack of malice) but then lose at a later date if she continues to repeat the claims after she has been presented with the evidence.

A lack of conclusive scientific evidence means that CO can use as a shield that she genuinely believes her conspiracy theories. So let's say she wins in the US on the lack on malice point even though conclusive scientific evidence is made available. Would that mean, that knowing she was wrong, that CO continuing with her allegations would then be malicious?

The Macron's lawyer (Tom Clare from Clare & Locke) is a very successful and experienced defamation/libel lawyer. One presumes he would have advised the Macron's against bringing this case if he had reason to believe they would fall at this hurdle.

Whether they can prove malice is a different question, but I would think he's convinced they have a very good chance. He would be unlikely to want to risk his reputation by taking a frivolous or likely loser of a case.

It's a really good example of the Streisand effect.

Also, from what I've read, in the first libel case BM didn't provide DNA evidence of being female so this case will be slightly different in that respect if that is where it is heading.

Unless, of course, marrying someone who would eventually become president of France was part of the diabolical plan back in (would check year but don't want to taint my algorithm further) when you initially invented the fake sister who you would eventually transition into. Or something.

IM is Imelda Marcos clearly. All the shoes were covering up for being a lizard.

😂

This thread is batshit. If I was secretly married to a transgender man who had to keep it a massive secret at all costs I would simply not become fucking president of fucking France.

Just for clarity, BM won at first instance but then lost on appeal at the Paris Court of Appeal in July 2025. The loss was not because of anything to do with BM's sex, and was simply that the allegations by Rey and Roy were made “in good faith” and therefore did not constitute defamation given the importance of freedom of expression in a democratic society.

However, the public perception was that the case was: BM, man or woman? This meant that the appeal result has been presented as BM having lost because she'd failed to prove she was a woman.

In the US defamation case, the bar for BM is higher, she has to prove that the allegations by CO were made with malice, and so BM might be looking at another loss. You can imagine that such a result would be presented as definitive "proof" that, again, BM has failed to prove she was a woman. I'd say that BM's main problem is that she bit when goaded by Internet obsessives. She would better have risen above the gutter.

https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/french-court-ruled-defamation-case-appeals-not-brigitte-macrons-gender-2025-07-31/

This reminds me of the Charlie Chaplin paternity case that discounted science in favour of pre-existing prejudice and confirmation bias.

Wasted several minutes of my life going through everyone I could think of but couldn't come up with IM 😂

Are you quite well?

😀

Sorry I meant EM. Emmanuel Macron.

I haven’t said anything about them not having the same rights as the rest of us have I? Stop trying to twist what I am saying.

I have been clear that BM has every right to access the courts. If she had the money to take a libel case and can provide the evidence required to prove she is female then I wish her well.

I am simultaneously critical of a political class who support or do nothing to deal with liar laws which cause untold harm to women and girls.

I don't know who IM is.

Having or not having influence has nothing to do with them having the same rights as the rest of us.

Fair enough you can think what you like.

But my position remains I have no problem at all with BM suing CO if she is happy to provide evidence that is entirely her right. No judgement from me.

I also have zero expectation that our leaders (including IM) will fight the fight (for women) that I think they should and I do judge them for that.

Also the wives or husbands of our leaders are not elected but to imagine they have no influence is naive.

BM isn't elected to anything. I support her right to fight for whatever she wants, she has as much right as anyone else.

To me You do come across as judging them as you make it clear you think they aren't fighting the fight you think they should.

I’m not judging her. I’m just pointing out that the idea of the Macrons 'fighting for the cause of truth' is a bit silly. We live in a post-truth world and trans ideology plays a significant role in the erosion of the idea of objective truth. The Macrons are powerful people — they could fight for truth if they wanted to. Emmanuel Macron is a leader. There is an expectation that our leaders are more courageous than the average person.