https://www.economist.com/international/2021/06/05/a-backlas...
Discussed at: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27603912
> The arguments the two sides put forward, in other words, are complex and debatable. But many trans activists think that any disagreement is tantamount to hate speech and try to suppress it. Some universities with policies that reflect the belief that trans women are women have acted on complaints about people who do nothing more than express a contrary view. In May, after students at Abertay University in Dundee reported that a student had said at a seminar that women have vaginas and men are stronger, the university launched an investigation.
Regardless of personal opinions on the topic, the fact that it gets this sort of is-it-or-isn't-it treatment in a major newspaper, on top of the seesawing behavior from universities described in the article itself, is a good indication that the topic's nature as "hate speech" or not is fairly ambiguous.
When everybody is participating in good faith, "I know it when I see it" obscenity test type stuff works fine. It's less obviously useful of a yardstick when there's a clear incentive to make bad faith claims against ideological or organizational rivals.
In reality in those cases there was almost no backlash and in fact everyone treated the professor with kid gloves while what he purported to have done was way worse and what the students had done was way overblown (see the Political Correctness of the excellent podcast called You Are Wrong About). So pardon me if I don’t buy this particular article/story line.
Apparently now it’s a viable theory but rewind 9 months ago and one could see a hate speech law silencing any debate.
And BTW, the President is actively pursuing an investigation into this. It's not some crackpot conspiracy.