I'm a police officer and work in Hate Crime, the only one of two in my force, so I feel like I can answer a few questions. Maybe I should do an AMA? 😂
I'm currently doing a huge piece of work with the Centre for Hate studies on a new training package for fellow officers because of the confusion of when and what to record.
So basically, no,.what you've said in your OP would not be a Hate Crime or a Non Crime Hate incident (NCHI).
An opinion can be as unpalatable or disagreeable as it wants, it doesn't necessarily mean a NCHI has occurred, much less a Hate crime/racially aggravated public order offence.
Definition of Hate Crime needs to be motivated by Bias, and the foundation crime (ie - assault) has to be made out first. It is for the police/prosecution to prove the basic offence (assault) was motivated or demonstrated hostility between one of the protected characteristics (please note these do not include all of those in the equality and diversity legislation, maternity/adoption etc for example).
NCHI are very different. Essentially a police force got sued successfully by an ex police officer after he tweeted what he stayed were gender critical views on Twitter and these were reported as a NCHI. His name and details were recorded on police systems as the 'suspect' and these would be disclosed as part of an enhanced DBS. He took the force to court and won the case, with the new term ' A chilling effect ' being coined by the CPS. This essentially means forces now have to have a very good reason to record the 'suspects' details when a NCHI occurs. Off the top of my head these are if there is 'a high likelihood of violence' OR ' A high probability of an offence being committed".
Here's the case:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/dec/21/ex-police-officer-wins-appeal-over-forces-guidance-on-hate-incidents
So essentially since then things have changed a lot, but of course this takes time.
A good example I use is an officer (who is one of the best and most victim led I know), recorded a S5 rac aggravated public order offence because whilst in custody for drink driving, a detainee said words to the effect of 'You think I'd drive drunk with someone else in my car? Never, it was just me. I'm not Romanian you know. I'm not Polish" and was arrested.
I reviewed it and there was no crime or Hate incident. What he said, whilst almost certainly based in racism, is nothing worse frankly than what some newspapers print. Moreover, someone needs to be caused Harassment/alarm or distress on this specific offence, and no where had the officer detailed that they were (having been the only other person to have heard it). So if the officer hadn't been effected by it, what harm had actually been done? This is how my contact in the CPS explained it anyway as I was new to the role and so confused!
However, another woman under arrest called the same officer (who is black) the N word multiple times. Very different and clearly an offence. There is no stand alone offence of Hate Crime, it is a bolt on onto the foundation offence which increases the sentence the suspect can get. So with this woman for example, the basic offence was a public order, which she probably would have got an out of court disposal for, but because it was proved to be Hate related (motivated by hostility - in this case the officers race), she ended up receiving a two month long custodial instead.
Neighbour disputes are another - A neighbour could strongly believe their neighbour is moving their wheelie bins because they're gay - without corroborating evidence, it doesn't make it a Hate Crime. It may be recorded as a NCHI (Without recording the other Neighbours details). Hate crime has to be PROVEN to be motivated by hostility, NCHI's only need to be PERCEIVED as such by the reporting person.
Now if of course the neighbour was moving their bin further away so the victim (now victim, not just reporting person) had to walk past their window in order for them to call out homophobic slurs out their window at them, then you've got yourself a Hate related offence.
Essentially I think it's important to take each case on its own merit. Especially with gender criticism, so long as you're not being insulting/intending to cause H/A/D, then everyone should be free to express their views. It's when these views cross that ever blurry line that we need to look closer at it as a whole.
Goodness that was long! I hope some of it makes sense!