In France, Dora Moutot convicted of transphobia for identifying a TW as male when asked.

[Emilesgran]

While we await the full implementation of the FWS judgment in the UK, Australia and now France show that the battle is far from over.

In 2021, Dora Moutot was taking part in a televised debate along with a transidentifying male who was being celebrated for becoming the first TW mayor in France. She was asked if she saw Marie Cau, the TW as a man or a woman, and basically told the truth.

She was taken to court for hate speech for this plus another comment about women needing to be careful around all “people with penises” - and has just lost the case.

https://twitter.com/doramoutot/status/2057180176484647069?s=20

Seeing how it’s reported in the French media (barely at all, and that, unsympathetically) I’m not sure what happens next in France, and the EU more generally. The Minister for equality between men and women spoke against… Dora Moutot.

This is her own description of the events.
https://unherd.com/2023/12/french-feminism-is-being-corrupted/

And a link to the original debate, in French:
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8elggw

I’m not sure whether she can appeal, but I think this is worrying. There is a level of capture in the French media that most people are completely unaware of. Like Australia, it’s still very much at the “Be Kind” level of debate, but this judgment will have a chilling effect and make any future discussion all the more difficult.

I don’t even know what can be done now - how can anyone dare tell the truth in the French media now, or indeed in a discussion at work or similar?

Sorry I forgot to react to the real topic of the thread and express my support for Dora M.
My experience of French society is that it is has clear rules and regulations which have to be adhered to strictly, and they are very back and white, no wriggle room for cultural customs or personal preferences.

When I lived in France, I felt conflicted - I believe in a secular state, but I also think people should be allowed wear what they damn well wanted to wear.

So it surprises me that they've taken to genderwoo so thoroughly. I would have thought that the male/female distinction is as clear as the secular/non-secular.
When women said they wanted to wear a hijab because it was part of their cultural tradition, not necessarily an expression of a religion, they were told ta-ra-ta-ta, it's a religious symbol, we don't allow those in public places, you'll participate in society bareheaded, or you won't participate in society at all.
Full stop. Some places even tried to ban women from wearing swimsuits that covered most of their bodies - a local authority telling women that they are not displaying enough skin to be acceptably secular!

It's odd, therefore, that the same kind of response isn't given to someone who claims to have changed sex - 'Désolé, monsieur, but your papers say you are a man, so....'

The idea of strict record-keeping, and the importance of being able to produce your ID papers, have been embedded in French society for ages.
If the idea of retrospectively changing something on a person's birth cert is shocking to Irish or British people, I can't get my head around how it has become acceptable in France for the precious state records of their citizens to be altered to say they have changed sex.

I'll be following Dora M's appeal with great interest.

But that misses the real point.

The Supreme Court made a ruling.

Then the mass media, and politicians(!) then decide to ignore the Surpreme Court.

A judge doesn't make a ruling think this will satisify X or Y group!

It was, is that those who should put this ruling into practice just aren't doing it.

Have there ever been another case where the Supreme Court made a ruling and politicians just shrugged their shoulders and said we dont care, we are going to go on doing what we want.

Seems to me the Supreme Court should have the power after a year, and certainly no longer, to have a review to see if a ruling has been implemented, and if not the politicians have to come to Court to explain why they haven't.

It's very frustrating to see the nonsense being played out.

Seems to me the Supreme Court should have the power after a year, and certainly no longer, to have a review to see if a ruling has been implemented, and if not the politicians have to come to Court to explain why they haven't.

Sounds fair to me.

Why do we have to hold each and every organisation to account one by one though it’s mad

Because they're a bunch of **s who won't obey the law?