Fact check: Is there any evidence to support claims that Brigitte Macron was male at birth?

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, there is no credible evidence to support claims that Brigitte Macron was male at birth. Multiple sources confirm that these claims are part of a conspiracy theory that has been circulating online ^[1]. The analyses reveal that biographical sources describing Brigitte Macron's life, career as a teacher, and role as France's First Lady contain no information suggesting she was born male ^{[2] [3] [4]}.

Legal action has been taken against those spreading these claims. The Macrons filed a defamation lawsuit against Candace Owens, a right-wing podcaster and US influencer, for making such assertions ^{[5] [6] [1]}. The lawsuit alleges that Owens knew the claims were false but published them anyway, with the claims being described as "demonstrably false" ^[7]. Additionally, two French women were found guilty of slander for falsely claiming that Brigitte Macron was transgender ^[8].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The analyses reveal important context missing from the original question:

• This is part of a broader pattern of targeted harassment - The legal cases show this isn't an isolated incident but part of ongoing false claims against the French First Lady ^{[8] [1]}
• International dimension - The conspiracy theory has crossed borders, with American influencer Candace Owens being a prominent spreader of these claims, demonstrating how misinformation can have international reach ^{[5] [1]}
• Legal consequences - Multiple court cases have resulted in convictions for slander, indicating that French courts have definitively ruled these claims as false and defamatory ^{[8] [7]}

Who benefits from spreading these claims:

• Right-wing influencers like Candace Owens may benefit from increased attention, engagement, and potentially financial gain from controversial content that drives viewership and social media interaction
• Political opponents of Emmanuel Macron could benefit from attempts to delegitimize or embarrass the French president through attacks on his wife

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

While the original question appears neutral by asking for "evidence," it legitimizes a conspiracy theory by treating it as a claim worthy of investigation. The phrasing suggests there might be credible evidence to examine, when the analyses clearly show this is demonstrably false misinformation that has resulted in successful legal action ^[7].

The question also omits the crucial context that these claims have been legally determined to be slanderous and false, with courts ruling against those who spread them ^[8]. By not acknowledging this established legal precedent, the question inadvertently amplifies harmful conspiracy theories that have been definitively debunked through multiple legal proceedings.