Fact check: What are the sources of the Brigitte Macron gender rumors?

1. Summary of the results

The gender rumors about Brigitte Macron originated from two primary sources that have been clearly identified through legal proceedings:

• Amandine Roy and Natacha Rey created and published a YouTube video making false claims that Brigitte Macron was born a man named Jean-Michel Trogneux - which is actually her brother's name ^{[1] [2]}
• Candace Owens, an ultraconservative American influencer and pro-Trump commentator, significantly amplified these rumors through her podcast and promoted a book containing these claims ^{[3] [4] [5]}

The rumors were further spread by far-right groups, anti-vaccine groups, and the QAnon conspiracy movement ^[2]. These claims have been definitively debunked through the French legal system, with Roy and Rey being found guilty of slander and ordered to pay damages to both Brigitte Macron and her brother ^{[1] [2]}.

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The analyses reveal several important contextual elements:

• Legal consequences: The French courts have ruled these claims as defamatory and slanderous, establishing legal precedent that these are false statements rather than legitimate questions ^{[1] [2]}
• International amplification: While the rumors originated in France through Roy and Rey's YouTube video, they gained significant international traction through Candace Owens' platform, demonstrating how conspiracy theories can cross borders and gain legitimacy through influential figures ^{[4] [5]}
• Coordinated spread: The rumors weren't isolated incidents but were actively promoted by organized groups including far-right movements and conspiracy theorists, suggesting a deliberate disinformation campaign rather than organic speculation ^[2]

Beneficiaries of these narratives include:

• Far-right political movements who benefit from undermining establishment political figures
• Conspiracy theory influencers like Candace Owens who gain followers and financial benefits from controversial content
• Anti-establishment groups who use such rumors to delegitimize democratic institutions

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question itself is relatively neutral in asking about "sources" of the rumors. However, there are subtle implications that should be addressed:

• Legitimizing false claims: By asking about "sources" without acknowledging these are proven false claims, the question could inadvertently legitimize conspiracy theories that have been legally debunked ^{[1] [2]}
• Missing legal context: The question doesn't acknowledge that these rumors have been subject to successful legal action, which is crucial context for understanding their veracity ^[2]
• Framing as rumors vs. disinformation: Calling them "rumors" rather than "false claims" or "disinformation" understates the deliberate nature of their creation and spread by specific individuals with apparent political motivations ^{[3] [5]}

The question would be more accurate if it acknowledged that these are legally established false claims rather than unresolved rumors, given the court rulings against their originators.