Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Is Candice Owens right when claiming that Brigitte Macron is a man?
Executive summary
Candace Owens has repeatedly promoted the claim that France’s first lady Brigitte Macron “was born a man,” a conspiracy theory that originated with French fringe bloggers and has been widely debunked by mainstream reporting and legal actions [1] [2]. The Macrons have pursued legal remedies in France and the U.S.; courts have handled defamation and free‑speech questions but have not issued any finding that supports Owens’s factual claim about Brigitte Macron’s sex at birth [3] [4].
1. What Owens actually said and where the claim came from
Candace Owens publicly asserted since March 2024 that she would “stake [her] entire professional reputation” on the allegation that Brigitte Macron was born male, and she amplified a longer conspiracy narrative in an eight‑part series and videos titled Becoming Brigitte [1] [2]. Reporting traces the origin of the specific claim back to 2017 French online actors — notably a 2021 YouTube video by bloggers Amandine Roy and Natacha Rey — rather than to any mainstream investigative finding [4] [1].
2. How mainstream outlets and researchers treat the claim
Major outlets and independent press covering the story characterise the theory as false, conspiratorial and transphobic; they document how it spread online and note that it forms part of a broader tactic of “transvestigation” used against prominent women [5] [2] [1]. News organisations report that the claim is unsubstantiated and that Owens persisted in pushing it despite counter‑evidence and legal complaints [2] [6].
3. Legal actions: what courts have and have not decided
The Macrons sued those who propagated the story. In September 2024 a Paris court found two bloggers guilty of defamation, but the Paris Court of Appeal overturned that verdict in July 2025 on freedom‑of‑expression grounds — the appellate court did not rule on the truth of the gender claims themselves [3] [7]. Separately, Emmanuel and Brigitte Macron filed a 22‑count defamation lawsuit in Delaware against Candace Owens; the Macrons have said they will present photographic and “scientific” evidence in U.S. proceedings to rebut the allegation that Brigitte Macron is transgender [4] [6] [8].
4. Evidence cited by the Macrons and responses in reporting
Media reporting says the Macrons plan to present family photographs and scientific documentation in court to demonstrate Brigitte Macron’s sex and life history — material the couple’s lawyers say exists and will be used within court rules and standards [4] [9]. Coverage frames that submission as part of a legal strategy to stop a “campaign of global humiliation” rather than as an ordinary forensic finding published by investigators [6].
5. What fact‑checkers and reporters emphasise about interpretation
Fact‑checking outlets and reporters emphasise that a court’s procedural ruling about defamation or freedom of expression is not the same as judicial validation of the underlying factual claim. Reuters explicitly notes the appellate court acquitted the bloggers on freedom‑of‑expression grounds and did not determine Brigitte Macron’s gender [3]. Several outlets place the narrative in a wider pattern of online harassment and sexist cyber‑harassment targeting women in public life [10] [5].
6. Broader context: why this kind of rumour spreads
Analysts and nonprofit newsrooms say the claim fits an established pattern: powerful or nonconforming women are sometimes targeted with baseless gender conspiracies to undermine credibility and provoke harassment; researchers link those tactics to political motives and to fringe online ecosystems seeking clicks and notoriety [2] [5]. Coverage also documents the toll on Brigitte Macron personally, including reported anxiety and cyber‑harassment that prompted criminal investigations and trials in France [8] [10].
7. What can — and cannot — be asserted based on available sources
Available reporting documents Owens’s repeated public promotion of the claim and the ensuing legal battles [1] [2] [4]. Several mainstream outlets describe the theory as unsubstantiated and note that courts have not validated the allegation; in particular, the Paris Court of Appeal did not rule on Brigitte Macron’s gender [3]. Available sources do not mention any independent, court‑admitted forensic ruling that confirms Owens’s assertion as true; instead, they describe ongoing litigation in which the Macrons intend to offer evidence to rebut the claim [4] [6].
8. Bottom line for readers
Based on the collected reporting, Owens’s allegation is part of a long‑running, fringe conspiracy narrative that mainstream journalists and analysts characterise as false and harmful; legal developments to date have addressed defamation and free‑speech issues rather than establishing the truth of the gender claim, and the Macrons are actively seeking to counter the allegation in court with documentary and scientific evidence [1] [3] [4]. Readers should treat Owens’s claim as unsubstantiated in the record of reputable reporting and note that the question is currently—and appropriately—being litigated rather than resolved by independent verification in the public domain [6] [3].