Macrons to Present ‘Scientific Evidence’ in Delaware Court to Establish Brigitte’s Female Identity, Legal Counsel States

France’s leader together with Brigitte intend to offer photographic and scientific evidence in a American legal case to confirm that Brigitte Macron is a woman, as stated by their legal representative.

The couple filed a defamation suit targeting political commentator the controversial figure, who continually asserted that the French first lady is not biologically female.

In response, her attorneys have moved to dismiss the claim.

“It is profoundly disturbing,” said their attorney, explaining that the accusations serve as a “distraction” to the president.

He emphasized that scientific evidence is set to be presented in court to counter the baseless allegations via detailed manner.

“She is absolutely determined to take all necessary steps to clear her name,” the attorney stated.

When asked about whether photos of the first lady during pregnancy might be submitted, their representative confirmed that relevant proof exists and will be offered following judicial procedures.

The influencer, who has a large number of audience across platforms, repeatedly spread the theory that Mrs. Macron was assigned male at birth.

Such accusations first emerged in conspiracy forums several years ago, attracting attention by means of videos by online figures.

Although the couple first obtained a legal victory domestically, the verdict was overturned later based on free speech principles, not the factual accuracy of the allegations.

The Macrons currently challenging the ruling.

Regarding the American case, the Macrons claim that she deliberately disregarded credible evidence and featured individuals spreading falsehoods.

Legal requirements in the US require that people in the spotlight prove “knowing falsehood” on the part of the defendant.

“The case revolves around defending my honour!” Macron explained to Paris Match. “It is false, promoted in order to inflicting damage.”

Her lawyers contend that the case should not be heard in Delaware, citing procedural grounds and significant personal strain.

She has previously stood by her statements, emphasizing her belief in First Amendment rights.