One of the problems is that the same people so intent on dissecting every nuance of wording when it suits them, also get very vague when it suits them, so that a frown of disapproval, or a discussion of the etiology of transgenderism (or is it transsexualism? the accepted terminology keeps changing), for example, gets described as an expression of "hate".

For example, "a violent attack on trans people will never be seen as a hate crime under the Canadian Criminal Code" is deliberately ambiguous.  It isn't "a violent attack on a trans person", which would be a physical attack on an individual, which most everyone would disapprove of, it is "a violent attack on transpeople", plural. What would that be, would anyone actually physically attack a group of trans people, and is that what is meant? No, what the author means is that someone can interpret said discussion as "a violent attack against trans PEOPLE", i.e. it is a way of shutting up discussion, no matter how civil, not "violence"