What evidence did Swiss courts consider in jailing a man for saying skeletons show sex differences?

1. What the courts said and what evidence they cited

Reporting indicates the Emmental‑Oberaargau regional court found Brünisholz’s Facebook reply to a politician’s post publicly denigrated LGBTQI people and therefore violated anti‑discrimination law; coverage notes the court ruled the comment attacked the dignity of a protected group and affirmed the guilty verdict on appeal before imposing additional costs ^{[3] [1] [4]}. Available sources do not quote a detailed judicial opinion listing scientific studies relied on by the judges; instead they emphasise the court’s legal finding that the post amounted to “publicly belittling” or “publicly denigrating” the LGBT(QI) group ^{[1] [3]}.

2. The defendant’s claim about scientific evidence

Brünisholz and his supporters framed the comment as a factual biological point — that skeletal sex dimorphism means a future exhumation would reveal only “male or female” skeletons — and argued forensic anthropology supports that sex can often be inferred from bones ^{[5] [6]}. Several outlets recite his exact phrasing and his public statement that he views the claim as a “scientific truth,” which he says the court ignored ^{[5] [2]}.

3. How supporters and critics frame the dispute

Supporters characterize this as criminalising factual biological claims and an attack on free speech; they point to forensic anthropology studies showing skeletal sex differences and say the ruling prioritises ideological conformity over science ^{[6] [4]}. Critics — as represented in reporting — emphasise that the post did more than state biology; it also called transgender identity “mentally ill” in the thread, which, according to the court, crossed into degrading a protected group and triggered hate‑speech rules ^{[3] [7]}.

4. Which law was used and how its scope matters

Multiple reports say the conviction rested on Switzerland’s expanded anti‑discrimination/hate speech law (Article 261bis is referenced in some outlets) that covers “sexual identities” after 2020 changes, allowing prosecutions for public denigration of LGBTQI people ^{[1] [6] [4]}. Commentators note that the broader legal definition of protected categories is central to the case and underlies debates over whether the law targets expression about biological facts or the denigration of people ^{[8] [1]}.

5. Gaps in the public record and how reporting varies

Available reporting repeatedly cites the Facebook comment, the fine, the appeal outcome and the custodial alternative when the fine was not paid ^{[1] [2]}. What is not found in current reporting is the court’s full written reasoning or citation of specific scientific evidence relied on to rebut Brünisholz’s factual claim; most sources summarise the legal finding rather than transcribe a judgment or expert testimony ^{[3] [6]}.

6. Wider context and the political angle

Observers and outlets tie the case into broader culture‑war narratives: some portray it as emblematic of shrinking free expression in Europe, while others stress the state’s duty to protect the dignity of vulnerable groups — a clash between forensic claims and anti‑discrimination enforcement ^{[9] [6]}. Several pieces explicitly note the timing and political resonance — for example, with a Swiss e‑ID referendum mentioned in analysis suggesting concerns about state power and digital surveillance — signalling that the story is being used to advance broader agendas on both sides ^{[6] [4]}.

Limitations: reporting in the provided sources is largely secondary and partisan; they do not include the court’s full published judgment or independent forensic‑anthropology expert testimony, so readers cannot verify whether judges considered or rejected specific scientific studies ^{[3] [6]}.