I think it's still a good idea to encourage these groups on developing skills to debate and interact with people they disagree with. It will help them in the real world
I've been thinking quite a lot about this. And thinking about my personal friendships, and the sticky points where I disagree with friends about various issues and when that matters, and when I accept that we disagree, but we're still friends. It's an important thing to think about.
As an academic, I trade in arguments, debates, and building knowledge through discussion. It can mean disagreement - either on details, or whole approaches. But it doesn't mean (hopefully) that such disagreements negate the work anyone does. Students need to learn this.
But there's a particular problem over transactivism and disagreement. This isn't what the Amber Rudd thing was - that was about her party politics - but it's at the centre of a lot of debates over free speech.
There's a conflation between discussing the boundaries and regulations of those who wish to be recognised legally as the other gender (you can't change sex) and the possible conflicts between the rights of transpeople and women, as another vulnerable protected class of people.
Transactivists, (and students influenced by them) see any discussion of trans issues as "denying their existence." Ditto any doubts about the "transwomen are women" mantra. They use this to try to block any further discussion, and name it hate speech.
Hmmmm, we have always discussed the conditions of "being" someone in identity politics. Women's existences, particularly, have been discussed for millennia, and erasure is our standard normalcy - just see Criado-Perez's book for the most recent examples of the erasure of women.
We don't stop the debate, but we argue against the manels, the setting up of the male body/biology/gender role as the default. And so on and so on.
But that is currently endangered by a readiness to ditch free speech.