🔗 Share this article Emmanuel and Brigitte Macron to Present Medical Proof in American Legal Proceedings to Confirm Brigitte’s Sex, Legal Counsel States The French President together with Brigitte are preparing to offer expert and documented testimony in a US court to verify that Brigitte Macron is biologically female, according to their lawyer. The Macrons initiated a legal claim against right-wing commentator the online personality, who publicly claimed that the French first lady is transgender. In response, Owens’ legal team have moved to dismiss the lawsuit. “This has been deeply distressing,” remarked the Macrons’ lawyer, adding that the claims serve as a “disruption” to France’s leader. The lawyer highlighted that expert testimony is set to be presented in court to disprove the unfounded allegations through a thorough manner. “Brigitte remains absolutely determined to take all necessary steps to clear her name,” Clare continued. Inquired about whether photos of the first lady with her children might be provided, the lawyer confirmed that relevant proof is available and is slated to be offered in accordance with judicial procedures. Candace Owens, boasting a large number of followers online, has consistently promoted the belief that Brigitte Macron is not female. Such accusations began circulating in fringe online communities in previous years, receiving traction through posts created by online figures. Even though the Macrons originally secured a legal victory in France, the verdict was reversed on appeal based on free speech principles, rather than the truth of the allegations. The Macrons currently appealing the ruling. Regarding the American case, they claim that she knowingly discounted credible evidence and featured known defamers. Legal requirements in the US stipulate that high-profile individuals demonstrate “reckless disregard” from the defendant. “It concerns defending my honour!” Emmanuel Macron stated in Paris Match. “It is false, promoted in order to creating distress.” Her lawyers contend that the case cannot be heard in that jurisdiction, citing procedural grounds and potential operational burden. The commentator has previously stood by her statements, stating her conviction in free speech.