By News18,Reshmi Dasgupta

Copyright news18

As the defamation suit that French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife Brigitte filed against the right wing activist and podcaster Candace Owens for consistently claiming the French First Lady was born a man makes headlines, the phenomenon of online conspiracy theories are once again in the spotlight. So it may be the appropriate time to float a connected conspiracy theory: that this is a right wing ploy to get US courts to certify the “proof” of womanhood.
One of the favourite opening gambits of the late Charlie Kirk when debating with students on the issue of transgenders and identity was to ask, “What is a woman?” Most of the time this simple query left even the most articulate politically correct youngsters struggling for the right words. Neither jargon nor medical procedure explanations or equivocation about self-identity would satisfy Kirk, He invariably pressed for precise definitions and sensing a trap, students did not oblige.
And that prevarication always led Kirk to make the incontrovertible scientific assertion, “DNA and sex chromosomes do not change with gender reassignment” and that they are determined at conception and cannot be altered—as yet. That biological certitude does not sit well with US trans activists, especially those who assert they have transitioned to female in every sense of the word and therefore should be allowed to freely participate as bonafide women in every sphere.
That Kirk question, “What is a woman?” appears to be what Brigitte Macron’s legal campaign will assert to counter Owens’ conspiracy theory. The Macrons say they will present “photographic and scientific evidence” that she is and has always been a woman, not ‘Jean-Michel Trogneux’, which is actually her brother’s name. And that has triggered wild speculation online about whether that would include photos of her private parts and various medical test results.
So far, the Macrons legal team has submitted an image of the announcement of Brigitte’s birth (April 13, 1953) , a family photo of her as a child, and one from her first marriage in 1974. Her lead lawyer also told the media that photos of her pregnancies would be presented during the hearings. In the age of AI and fake images, those photos will inevitably be disputed by Owens’ lawyers as she has doubled down on what she has said about Macron rather than back down.
Given the online frenzy such theories cause in the US—Owens has 6 million followers on Instagram—it is significant that the Macrons chose to file the case in the US, the epicentre of conspiracy theories, from the Moon landing being fake to QAnon. The Macrons may have realised that since the impetus comes from the US, their case should be settled there too though the story was first floated in France in 2021 by a journalist Natascha Rey and a ‘medium’ Amandine Roy.
The Macrons had filed a suit against them too, but the French courts flip-flopped. One bench ordered Rey and Roy to pay €8,000 in damages to Brigitte Macron and €5,000 to her brother Jean-Michel Trogneux last September but another bench let off the pair in 2025 on “freedom of expression” grounds. The US courts may take the same tack but American conservatives must be secretly pleased anyway, as the evidence presented will rely on biology not self-identity.
The Macrons have to prove malicious intent to win the defamation case, which is a tough call, though have averred that the podcaster’s campaign has led to a global campaign of calumny and bullying. But the court may see their being a political couple as a mitigating factor. Public life has its downsides, and being the target of conspiracy theories comes with the territory. The Macrons know that. So their determination to hold Owens to account in court is courageous but risky.
Particularly since the trans issue is also a factor in French politics. Last year Macron was accused of transphobia after criticising the new Left-wing coalition Nouveau Front Populaire’s proposal to allow citizens to change their gender at the town hall rather than the current court approval stipulation. He used that example to highlight the “gruesomeness” of the “far-Left”. Therefore, how political alliances will react to the revelations in the Macron case is moot.
For years former US First Lady Michelle Obama has been the favourite target of a campaign called “transvestigation”, self-tasked with proving that prominent people are not the sex they claim (or seem) to be. Videos are still doing the rounds that purportedly “reveal” anatomical details proving Michelle is actually Michael. But Obama and other Americans on these transvestigators’ lists from Taylor Swift and Lady Gaga to Serena Williams have studiously refused to respond so far.
Many liberal analysts have tried to tie in the conspiracy theory phenomenon to a supposed right wing strategy to take down “powerful” women in order to promote their preference for “trad” wives. But the two First Ladies (one former, one current) are actually more “trad” than anything else (including trans) because their entire persona is framed within the context of their husbands’ political office and all their so-called “achievements” are also entirely connected to that.
So the reason must lie elsewhere. Many would readily believe that Owens and others like her across the political spectrum, latch on to topics that bait celebrities and cause a furore as that gets them pecuniary benefits which are linked to “viewer engagement” numbers. So, while the Macrons are not at all relevant to average American viewers, they would be interested because of similarities with the Michelle-Michael conspiracy theory. And interest means big money.
Call that a conspiracy theory as well, but it is certainly as believable (if not more) than the trans women theories about the First Ladies. And the west’s famously generous legal and social leeway for ‘freedom of expression’ and the implied ‘right to offend’ actually encourage people like Owens to push the envelope. Conspiracy theories are lucrative for internet platforms and content creators so transvestigations will certainly continue. But who, after Brigitte and Michelle?
The author is a freelance writer. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18’s views.