What exactly did the defendant say about skeletal sex differences that led to legal action?
Executive summary
Emanuel Brünisholz wrote a Facebook reply in December 2022 saying, “If you dig up LGBTQI people after 200 years, you’ll only find men and women based on their skeletons. Everything else is a mental illness promoted through the curriculum,” a comment that led to charges under Switzerland’s hate‑speech provision (Article 261bis), a conviction, fines and a 10‑day jail sentence he chose to serve rather than pay [1] [2] [3]. Forensic anthropology literature and professional statements confirm that skeletal sex estimation is a routine, probabilistic practice for post‑pubertal remains — but they also stress limits, population variation and lower reliability for juveniles [4] [5] [6] [7].
1. What the defendant actually wrote — plain text and context
Brünisholz’s contested line, posted as a reply to a Swiss MP, asserted that excavated human skeletons would show only male and female categories and called other claims “a mental illness promoted through the curriculum.” Multiple reports reproduce the same quote and date it to December 2022; the remark was framed as both a factual claim about skeletal sex and a denunciation of LGBTQI identities [1] [2] [3].
2. Why prosecutors treated the comment as criminal
Swiss authorities charged him under Article 261bis — the expanded anti‑discrimination/hate‑speech law — on grounds that his post “denigrated” LGBTQI people and thus constituted public incitement to hatred or discrimination; the conviction and fine, and the later refusal to pay that led to a 10‑day jail term, flowed from that legal interpretation reported in multiple outlets [3] [2] [1].
3. How advocates and critics describe the statement
Supporters of Brünisholz cast the sentence as punishment for stating a “biological truth” and an attack on free speech, arguing that skeletal sex is a scientific matter and that the court mischaracterised his intent [3] [8]. Critics — including prosecutors cited in reporting — argued the post went beyond a technical observation and functioned as a denial of the legitimacy and existence of LGBTQI people, which the court treated as demeaning and thus covered by hate‑speech law [2] [1].
4. What forensic science says about “skeletons = sex”
Forensic and archaeological literature confirms that many adult skeletal features show sexual dimorphism and that practitioners routinely estimate sex from post‑pubertal remains using multiple qualitative and quantitative methods; most forensic anthropologists use several approaches and report probabilistic results rather than certainties [4] [5] [9]. Professional statements also caution that sex estimation is less reliable for subadults and that population variability creates overlap between male and female trait distributions [6] [7].
5. Where factual claims in the comment match technical practice — and where they don’t
Brünisholz’s broad assertion that you would “only find men and women based on their skeletons” aligns with the technical reality that adult skeletons commonly display sexually dimorphic traits — especially the pelvis and skull — that allow high‑probability sex estimation [9] [5]. Available sources, however, emphasise limits: estimation is probabilistic, population‑specific, and unreliable for juveniles; professional bodies warn against overstating certainty [4] [6] [7]. Reports do not show forensic experts endorsing the legal charge that a factual statement about skeletal dimorphism alone is punishable — rather, reporting shows the legal focus was on the broader demeaning framing [2] [1].
6. Competing narratives and implicit agendas in coverage
Right‑leaning and free‑speech outlets frame the ruling as ideological censorship of biological fact and elevate the scientific claim that skeletons are sexed [3] [8] [10]. Civil‑rights framing in other reports centers the harm the post allegedly caused to LGBTQI people and points to Swiss hate‑speech law as the decisive factor [2] [1]. Academic sources cited here aim to distance scientific sex‑estimation practices from political debates by underscoring methodological nuance [4] [6].
7. Limitations of available reporting and unanswered questions
Available sources reproduce the Facebook quote and the legal outcome but do not provide a full court transcript or detailed forensic expert testimony showing how scientific practice was weighed by the judge; they also do not contain independent forensic evaluations of the exact claim’s accuracy in the legal context [2] [1]. That gap matters: scientific statements about skeletal dimorphism are context‑sensitive, and courts assess intent, context and effect — factors not fully documented in these reports [3] [2].
Conclusion: The phrase that triggered legal action mixed a scientific assertion about sexual dimorphism in adult skeletons with a disparaging statement about LGBTQI identities; Swiss prosecutors treated the combination as criminal denigration under Article 261bis, while forensic sources confirm the technical basis for sex estimation but stress its probabilistic limits and population dependence [1] [4] [6].