He didn’t say what he meant
Yes he did - if you read the article in the op's link;
When a crime is carried out against someone - such as assault, harassment or criminal damage - if it is proven that it was because of their race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or transgender identity, it is considered a hate crime.
There is no specific hate crime offence in England and Wales, but when a crime falls into one of the above categories, judges have enhanced sentencing powers and can increase the punishment as a result.
Campaigners say sex and gender should be added to this list, arguing misogyny is one of the "root causes" of violence against women.
Mr Raab added that "insults, and misogyny is [of] course absolutely wrong, whether it's a man against a woman or a woman against a man". ...
Asked to clarify his comments later in the interview, Mr Raab said: "What I meant was if we are talking about things below the level of public order offences of harassment, intimidation, which are rightly criminalised - if we are talking about, effectively, insults with a sexist basis, I don't think that criminalising those sorts of things will deal with the problem that we have got at the heart of the Sarah Everard case.^
"Just criminalising insulting language even if it is misogynistic doesn't deal with the intimidation, the violence and the much higher level of offence and damage and harm that we really ought to be laser-like focused in on," he added.
Didn't do Greek at school then
Perhaps not - he went to a state school. Didn't Keir Starmer say only last week that Latin was a pointless subject in state schools?