French Campaigner Dora Moutot - court case over comments on sex and gender rights

[KnottyAuty]

Substack here
https://doramoutot.substack.com/p/nouvelle-procedure-contre-moi-jai?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=436557&post_id=212310051

In May 2026, Dora was sentenced by the Paris High Court to a fine of €4,754 and court costs for an «injure publique» against a group of people based on their gender identity and sex. She started speaking out on the "excesses of trans ideology" in 2020 and co-authored a book “Transmania” with Marguerite Stern

The offence stemmed from a statement she made on TV channel France 2 on October 15, 2022 "As women, we are forced to be wary of people with penises ," in the context of a televised debate discussing the case of trans-identifying males being held in women's prisons. She made a series of Substack posts which documents the case against her and her appeal is due to be heard in 2027.

Due to speaking out on women's rights, many death threats have been made against her and published on the internet. Initially the police pursued against those who had threatened violence... but the identities of the accused could not be verified. Twelve "unusual" transcription errors with IP addresses and small details meant that the criminal case collapsed earlier this year. As a result she is pursuing a civil case and has had to provide a deposit and proof that she is not doing this as harassment... Seems especially perverse given the mildness of her comments!

Now she has been informed that she will be "the subject of a new legal proceeding, initiated by another LGBT association, “Famille LGBT”, for comments made in 2023 in the manifesto on our website femelliste.com". These are very similar remarks to those made in 2022.

So 2027 is looking a bit grim for her and there is a garden which is not entirely east to find -

• appealing the €4,754 fine and conviction from 2022
• her own civil case regarding death threats (after collapse of criminal case)
• new hearing on the Famille LGBT case

She says "I am faced with a difficult legal battle. A legal battle to have the French justice system recognize the right of French citizens to criticize the excesses of a fashionable ideology without being accused of uttering insults or inciting hatred."

I hope she wins her case. It is ridiculous that she could be fined for such mild talk, while the authorities ignore actual death threats

Misgendering = correctly sexing. You don't have right to dictate what anyone who disagrees with you believes @celavieee. Gender critical is a legally protected belief.
Discrimination on basis of gender is for work, housing, legal representation etc not to order everyone to agree that male/female people can become female/male people.

Forstater did win the appeal but the judgement noted

The judgement noted:[8][41]

Just as the legal recognition of civil partnerships does not negate the right of a person to believe that marriage should only apply to heterosexual couples, becoming the acquired gender 'for all purposes' within the meaning of GRA does not negate a person's right to believe, like the claimant, that as a matter of biology a trans person is still their natal sex. Both beliefs may well be profoundly offensive and even distressing to many others, but they are beliefs that are and must be tolerated in a pluralist society.

The summary went on to say:

This judgment does not mean that those with gender-critical beliefs can 'misgender' trans persons with impunity. The Claimant, like everyone else, will continue to be subject to the prohibitions on discrimination and harassment under the [Equality Act].

Again, nobody is "confusing" anything. We are quite clear here.

"Gender" = sex stereotypes, much beloved of sexists
Sex = reality

This isn't difficult.

It's really lucky the shoe doesn't fit, then isn't it. (Although the Nazis were big fans of cross-dressing. Just saying.)

What "harmful consequences" are there of telling a literal man that he is in fact a man? It's the truth. We have every right to tell the truth. There is no such thing as "the right to your own identity". If I identify as Napoleon Bonaparte, does that mean I am actually Napoleon and everyone must pander to this delusion of mine? Don't be ridiculous.

There are plenty of very real consequences that arise from pretending that men can be women based on some very male fantasy (and demonstrably often a fetish) that regressive sex stereotypes can somehow make him a woman "inside". This is not reality. It is not backed up by either science or statistics.

Consequences like women being raped by trans identifying male rapists in prisons who have been put there because of sexist deeply stupid or actively woman-hating idiots who actually think that "gender identity" is the equivalent of biological sex and that man is literally a woman just the same as an actual woman on the grounds he claims he is, despite all the evidence otherwise. It actively flouts women's human rights.

But then those who promote "gender identity" don't really know or care much about women's human rights. Or history. Or science. Or democracy. Or equality.

So failing to uphold 'Basic social etiquette' merits fines and imprisonments?
That person who let the door slam in my face - quick, call the police!

Punishing women for stating basic biological, historical and social facts can never be justified, and I'm afraid your posts are proving that - you are mixing up gender and sex, you think that everybody is obliged to organise their mind around other people's personal beliefs about their gender ID, and the speedy invocation of Nazism is just the icing on the cake of misguided, groundless anti-reality, post-factual justification for the persecution of Moutot and Stern.

But since you have brought up the Nazis in the context of French society, I'll run with it

I think of sex-realist women like Dora and Marguerite as brave fighters who are forced to 'prendre le maquis' to resist an authoritarian force which is using fear and punishment to impose an irrational, anti-science ideology on society.
Or 'social etiquette' as you prefer to call it.

Don't be daft. 'Sex' is one of the most fundamental organisational principles of life on earth. It exists, is measurable and easily identifiable.

Women's rights and protections do not need to be "balanced". Balanced with what?

The moment you violate the protections and boundaries which have been put in place to give dignity and protection to the female sex you have prioritised the imagined 'rights' of males ( under the sway of gender theory) to access those spaces and catgeories.This s not " balancing". That is removing those rights and protections.

No I am not. 'Gender' is a conceptual catgeory that not everyone subscribes to, or believes in, whereas 'Sex' is one of the basic and most fundamental categorisations of life on Planet Earth, the world over, since time began.

You can call it by a medical term, a coy euphemism or crude playground slang. Or you can not call it anything and mumble about social constructs. But half the human population are born with a penis and testicles. The other half are not going to pretend otherwise.

Saw this and made a donation. Merciiiiii

Even if you do subscribe to something called 'gender' - which I do, because otherwise what was my 'gender dysphoric' [shorthand] girlhood all about?? - it is nowhere near as useful a category as biological sex.

Take the WHO definition, which works for me
Gender refers to the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed. This includes norms, behaviours and roles associated with being a woman, man, girl or boy, as well as relationships with each other. As a social construct, gender varies from society to society and can change over time.
Gender

The fact that gender is not a verifiable fact, which sex is, and that it changes depending on historical era, social class, culture, ethnicity, etc etc, makes it unsuitable as a basis for legislation.

The result is 'Gender Recognition Acts' that do something good, though why the law has to get mixed up in individual identity at all is questionable - they say that it is perfectly legal to reject the norms, behaviours and roles associated with being a woman, man, girl or boy.

Great.

But I don't see the logic in Gender Recognition legislation going further to say that a person who rejects the norms, behaviours and roles associated with being a woman, man, girl or boy should then be considered as legally a member of the opposite sex, rather than just a member of their original sex who rejects the norms, behaviours and roles associated with being a woman, man, girl or boy.

That's probably unclear, sorry, my point is that even most TRAs seem to accept that gender is not the same as sex, so why does legislation recognising people's gender identity stray into changing their legal sex as well?

Any meaningful category requires a definition. A definition, and parameters which shape that definition.

We all understand the definition of 'Sex' and how that definition is arrived at, and how it is measured. It is universal across all cultures.

'Gender' has no meaningful definition. No definition that is consistent across all people, all cultures, and all time. A 'feminine gender' offers no fixed meaning beyond what the individual gives it. It means different things to different people, across different societies and differnt cultures, and across different periods of time.

'Sex' is not a social catgegory, it is a fixed biological category - even if different societies and different people across different times have different beliefs or feelings about its existence and what its existence means or implies.

The reason we have ( well some societies, anyway - not all) seen fit to provide female people with certain civil rights and social protections comes as a result of a millennia of experience of some of the basic differences between males and females. These differences are not rooted in personality or preference, but in biological difference and some of the consequences of those biological differences. Differences around role in procreation and childbirth; around the nurture of young; around the operation and manifestation of the sex drive; around physical/structural differences between males and females which can mean greater vulnerability for females in certain types of situation.

A man with a 'feminine gender' is still male, and sex is instinctively recognised.

Some might say 'gender dysphoria' is simply a contemporary term ( but with a whole ideology attached) for how young people struggle with the expectations of their sex, and/or with their cross sex fantasies and sympathies.

The fact that humans invented the word does not mean they created the thing.

Oxygen is not a social construct - whether you have no word for it, or call it vital air, or phlogiston, it remains an element with 8 protons, and atomic mass of 16, and an electron configuration of 2s2 2p4. Gravity is not a social contract. Sex is not a social construct. Facts exist independently of human labels.

"If all else fails, just default to Nazi's and meaningless word salad" is the hallmark of GretelNorthernBaileyHouseIcelandicNightsCestlavie and his arguments. Something something proportionality, something something balancing, something something you're confused about gender vs sex...different toilet, same shit basically.

Stating that people with penises are male and that women should be wary of them, is in no way hate speech. I fully support Ms Moutot and hope that her case is successful.

Worth re-iterating this:

Also discrimination can rise to the level of harassment so while you are entitled to your beliefs you aren't entitled to deny others theirs by denying their right to their own identity

Im sure everyone here will wholeheartedly agree.

And the courts do too - where women have taken employers to tribunal as a result of sharing changing rooms and toilets etc they have won cases of being harassed by those who believe that gender identity should override women’s rights.

Thanks also for posting this.

It’s exactly why Dora will win her case on appeal too - she didnt misgender. She pointed out in the mildest possible terms that (based on centuries of evidence) penis-havers are problematic for women’s safety, privacy and dignity.

Dora expressed her views as is her right even if some people are offended. That’s not the same as harassment as your post confirms. Thanks!

YES!

And gendered expression exists independently of human labels too. Attempting to deny that hormones & genes influence the mind as well as the body as a consequence of evolutionary strategies is purely anti science.

In UK law if you have met the legal test to justify a single sex space or service then you automatically cant let a member of the opposite sex enter it. In other words the original segregation has a legal purpose which someone’s feelings cant override. It’s lawful discrimination.

Just popping this here to remind lurkers that the balancing only happens when deciding whether or not the single sex space is required in the first place - not whether to let blokes in once it exists

Correct!

However you can’t extend that to choice of clothing or haircuts or jewellery duh

ETA or whether being female limits access to jobs, education, bank accounts, mortgages etc. Do be careful or Youll be trying to reverse the 1970 Sex Discrimination Act next

…

This is as silly as saying once an employer decides an action isn't discriminatory & takes action they can't be challenged in court over it.

Under UK law, individuals and organisations can challenge whether a statutory or administrative exemption is proportionate. Whether an exemption is found in employment, human rights, data protection, or public planning law, its application or very existence can be contested if it creates an unfair balance or inflicts a discriminatory burden.

The Forstater case was decided by English judiciary not French so good luck with that.

Absolutely it can be contested.
And may need to go through various rounds of discussion/testing.
But Dora’s going to win her case eventually through that process of testing
you might be offended but most people are not and consider your approach too much of an infringement on their rights.
Dora and the rest of reality will win out in the end so that regular moderate speech will be once again widely accepted.
you should really stop wasting your time here amd instead go after the (usually) blokes who do wish actual ill on trans people. Unlike most posters here who want Womens rights protected rather than harm to anyone.
got that yet? You’ve been here long enough in different guises so it’s a bit surprising Youve still not quite got it yet