What evidence and expert testimony were central to the Swiss prosecution over skeleton sex-differences claims?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Swiss courts convicted Emanuel Brünisholz for a 2022 Facebook reply saying “if you dig up LGBTQI people after 200 years, you’ll only find men and women based on their skeletons,” and for calling those views “a mental illness”; he was fined CHF 500, ordered to pay court costs (about CHF 800) and—after refusing to pay—served a ten‑day custodial term [1] [2]. Reporting and commentary frame the case around hate‑speech law (Article 261bis / “public denigration”), biological claims about sexual dimorphism in skeletons, and sharply differing interpretations of what the defendant wrote [1] [3].
1. What the prosecution relied on: the message and its context
Swiss reporting says prosecutors and the Emmental‑Oberaargau regional court treated Brünisholz’s Facebook reply as “publicly denigrating” LGBTQI people because it asserted that non‑binary/trans identities were “mental illness” and reduced LGBTQI to a protected group; that factual posture—what he wrote and how it was directed at a political figure’s post—was central to the charge under Swiss anti‑discrimination/hate‑speech provisions [1] [2].
2. The evidentiary backbone: the post itself and procedural record
Available accounts identify Brünisholz’s December 2022 reply as the primary piece of evidence: the text in which he asserted skeletons reveal only “men and women” and labelled other identities mentally ill. Court outcomes—fine, costs and suspended penalties cited in stories—derive directly from the post plus police questioning and the regional court’s ruling; multiple outlets reproduce the post and the sanction details [1] [2] [4].
3. Expert testimony and scientific claims — what sources report (and what they don’t)
Mainstream coverage cited the biological fact that forensic anthropology often distinguishes male and female skeletons (pelvic shape, bone density) as background context for why Brünisholz claimed a “scientific” basis; the Telegraph notes skeletal sex differences [1]. But the provided reporting does not detail any expert witnesses called by prosecution or defence in the trial itself—no forensic anthropologist testimony, no peer‑reviewed studies entered as exhibits, and no description of how scientific evidence was weighed in court appears in the sources [1] [2]. Available sources do not mention named expert testimony presented at trial [1] [2].
4. Legal framing: hate speech, sexual orientation vs. gender identity
Commentators and some outlets emphasise a legal controversy: Swiss hate‑speech law covers “sexual orientation” and the court reportedly construed “LGBTQI” as falling under that protected class, a point defenders say stretches the statutory language because gender identity is not always explicitly named. Critics argue the conviction followed a broad interpretation of the law to include the defendant’s remarks about transgender people; supporters stress the post’s denigrating content toward a protected group [3] [4] [5].
5. Competing narratives in the media and advocacy coverage
Conservative and free‑speech outlets depict the case as criminalising biological truth and silencing dissent; they stress that skeletons can show sex dimorphism and present the conviction as an attack on scientific fact [3] [5]. Other reporting (Telegraph) notes that the post’s suggestion that transgender people are “mentally ill” likely drove legal action—framing the ruling as enforcement against denigration rather than against a biological claim per se [1].
6. What’s missing from public reporting and why it matters
The provided sources lack court transcripts, an official judgment text explaining evidentiary findings, or documentation of any expert witnesses. That gap prevents verification of whether the court relied on scientific experts, how it defined “LGBTQI” as a protected class in its reasoning, and whether the conviction turned on factual inaccuracy or on the demeaning tone and targeted group identity [1] [2]. Without the judgment, assessments about the role of expert testimony remain speculative: available sources do not mention such testimony [1] [2].
7. How to read competing claims responsibly
Readers should separate three distinct questions the case raises: (a) whether skeletons show sex differences (forensic anthropology offers methods to estimate sex from bones, cited in background reporting) [1]; (b) whether stating that fact can constitute hate speech when combined with statements that label a group mentally ill (the prosecution’s legal theory reported in several outlets) [1] [2]; and (c) whether Swiss courts applied hate‑speech law correctly and narrowly (commentators disagree sharply and sources present both positions) [3] [4].
Limitations: this analysis uses only the supplied reporting; no court text, forensic expert filings or Swiss ministry statements are included in those sources. The absence of primary legal documents in the available reporting means conclusions about expert testimony and evidentiary weight are necessarily provisional [1] [2].