And in another potential point of tension, from 1 August a new regulation comes into force requiring universities in England to go further in showing how they will promote and uphold free speech on campus.
The OfS says this shouldn't include the content of courses or discussions in the lecture hall. All higher education institutions have to meet conditions to register with the OfS in order to charge tuition fees.
But they will also have to show how they are acting to prevent the harassment of students - and universities are required to try to increase applications from underrepresented groups, through initiatives to make them feel more included.
Lawyer Smita Jamdar, who advises universities in England on how to comply with regulations, says that to reduce harassment, universities need to be "really clear about the behaviour you will and will not tolerate" and that action will be taken when students "transgress those boundaries".
While that has to be balanced against freedom of speech, Ms Jamdar said most people would expect "the line to be drawn somewhere other than name calling and derogatory jokes".
When the BBC looked at similar trans equality policies at a number of universities it wasn't entirely clear whether they would be considered a challenge to free speech.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn52527gk69o
I really don't think this as difficult as students are making out.
You do not have a right to only hear what you want to hear. Sex exists. Trans people have a sex. Sex is not gender and conflating the two is harmful to everyone including trans people. Pronouns are not politically neutral and can do harms. There is no right for males to use female facilities - there's an exception clause in the equality act. We have a legal right to believe in sex as this WORIADS.
Targeted campaigns against individuals including death threats aren't that difficult to distinguish as harassment.
The problem with trans policies full stop is they are built on the concept of others being forced to comply with almost religious doctrine. And it's built on the believe in someone else's head. It's not tangible and it's fictitious.
The further this goes along, the more I think it has to be treated as a religious belief with separate facilities provided by institutions of a big enough size where appropriate - like prayer rooms are. However others can not be forced to go along with it. You can state you don't believe and I would go as far as saying that pronouns are going to have to be let go. The issue is whether you are harassed and abused for your beliefs and aren't employed. Harassed would be a targeted campaign of deliberately going out of your way to do something that isn't in the course of normal every day life. So anything that involves a journey that you would otherwise not make, springs to mind as a good and easy way to start. Along with certain spaces having different levels of protection. (This is also why the L will need a divorce from the T - they are incompatible if you want a protective bubble for either or both. Universities would be wise to oversee it or they put themselves at risk.) Unequal levels of unfair criticism is another, where you can demonstrate that another student is being treated more favourably.
But as part of this students are going to have to start to accept that they aren't the centre of the known universe like toddlers think. They may have no said to them because of various concerns or issues - including for their own wellbeing which they may not recognise. Demanding is going to have to stop. It's not something they will be able to do after university so it's not in their long term interests for it to be normalised by cowardly universities.
It's interesting that there is more to come in terms of harassment. The harassment elements of this and the inability of universities to grasp what harassment is, is going to produce some interesting results.