I've been on audio-only and I missed hearing who the man was.
He asked two questions that made it clear that he already had a strong pro-trans position. One was regarding the fact that Liz Truss had had three meetings with trans groups/ representatives and none with women and did they think there had been any prejudice as a result? I would have replied along the lines of not being able to say if it was prejudicial: we have no idea what the outcome would have been if women's voices had been heard. Instead they were all badgered into admitting that it wasn't prejudicial.
And then requiring them to state whether they believed TWAW. A*hole. I do hope the women of his constituency will be down on him like a ton of bricks.
And yes, there seemed to be a large gap between the knowledge and IQ of the witnesses, who were extraordinarily articulate and on the ball, and the committee.
Some lovely pick-ups: was it Rosa who pointed out that one of the the reasons that one of the members of the pro-trans panels wanted self-ID to be a casual affair was because, as they'd explained, lots of people were gender-fluid and non-binary and their identity was likely to change, so they didn't want to be bound by signing up to their new gender for life. That was a major own goal and totally undermined the idea that gender ID is innate and unchanging.