What about men then? No one would take you seriously if you said the same thing about a man being called a "fag"!
But oh noes won't-you-please-think-of-the-women works every damn time!
And you want us to believe you sincerely think calling someone a fag constitutes a "hate crime", even though the term is nebulous enough to be meaningless?
Hate speech is a crime in many Western democracies outside the USA.
As a programmer I've made my peace with the nebulousness of terms involving humans. People are made from language, and our core beliefs are abstract nouns.
It's a crime like speeding on the highway: only a tiny fraction of the incidents might ever make it to prosecution, but occasionally it gets people killed. So people should bear that in mind and choose not to do it.
People are made of the cybernetics of language, environment, sensual stimuli, calculation, and reflexes. Our core beliefs are mostly evolved strategies and tools for navigating a world that has rapidly changed from that evolutionary environment.
With that said, how is a hate crime...a crime? It's ridiculous to expect a tribal OS to abandon its tribal software to such a level that it computes things either as a maximiizing solitary agent or an agent who considers all other agents as equal utlity, despite information suggesting otherwise.
That's honestly a ridiculous onus to put on people, especially those we would consider "the majority". The greater danger is giving government another vague blankish check to react to the demands of the idiocy of a society that doesn't look for things to think about but instead for things to feel about. Which is a fucking horrible basis to start trying to formulate laws and regulations.
I trust the mendacity of government (and most human hierarchies in general) far more than I trust the ability of civil servants to follow a spirit of the law as opposed to disavowing liability by adopting legalistic attitudes.