As my old professor used to say, "Some stereotypes are real." There are certain things we do in some locales that we would not consider doing in other locales, and at least some of the time, this is for good reason, e.g. the odds of unwanted consequences from a significant number of people from certain groups found in those locales. This is a just matter of prudence, and if articulated to those one cares for, it is prudent advice. Actuaries do something analogous with their advice, and it does save insurance companies money, so it must track something real. But I guess the "higher states of consciousness" come when a negatively stereotyped group comes to accept some unsalutory truths about itself and takes steps toward making changes, or when a positively stereotyped group comes to see that those positive features shouldn't confer unfair advantage or become exclusionary.

Yes, except there is empirical evidence. Anecdotal evidences are full of errors and biases perceptual illusions self defence mechanisms and self fulfilling prophesied Because ten Ijebu boys have been stingy towards me doesn't mean stinginess is the trait of Ijebus.. My experience of the ten as stingy may be a product of my negative behaviour, a projection of my or my ingroup inadequacies etc. How can I then generalise this error as an attribute of a group without committing a bigger and more heinous error?

In research, personal experiences could be regarded as the first hand information which could be applied to academic activities. However, caution must be exercised because most times such experiences could affect just a segment of the population while the majority of the same population might be having different versions of such experiences. Although such experiences are bitter and they usually sink into peoples nerves and they manifest in their write ups in a subjective manner. Therefore, it be considered discriminatory to make a broad statement about an ingroup or outgroup out from personal experience. This is because, personal experience is not enough to make a broad statement, instead scientific facts are needed for validation.

Making a broad statement without evidence of 'others' in my opinion will be biased / discriminatory because its directed at the in/out group as a whole. Think racism and homophobia for example. Context and analysis needs to be 'factual in academia'.

A broad statement links the individual to space, place and time through experience. Expressing a statement based on personal experience opens pandoras box (my opinion) to debate and possible conflict. Time, Place and the Space for free expression in society is acceptable in fiction writing and may take one to a higher state of consciousness with self expression. Good luck

I object to the hopelessly vague way this question is framed: 'broad', forsooth! The distinction to make is among statistical (even if only quasi-quantitative) generalizations and black-and-white claims. By definition, a stereotype is a rigid, single-point-of-reference description (like the old-fashioned physical device by that name)--so no, no stereotype is acceptable. But backed by adequate evidence, a statistical generalization about some group is not just warranted--it is the essence of sociology.

Thank you to all who have posted. I have realized that my question was in need of serious rephrasing and adjustment.

My real question: Can the allowance of discriminatory opinion expression further the cause of equality and contribute to society a higher state of consciousness?

This question is in reflection to the following assumptions: 1) What was most destructive about the Nazi propaganda against the Jews, was not so much the expression of those hateful opinions but the suppression of those who sought to refute them. In contrast... 2) It was Black people in America which earn their status as equal citizens partly by free discussion which persuaded ordinary Americans that racial stereotyping is both irrational and unjust.

I believe that the answer to your re-phrased question can only be "the devil is in the details". Which kinds of speech should be free and which disallowed is a balancing act depending on the rest of the story. Cases of speech that is coercive or fraudulent should be disallowed, for example, but that is of course not the kind of speech you have in mind. The tricky part lies in the fact that there is a strong causal connection, given human nature, between speech and behavior, hence inciting a lynch-mob must be forbidden. Where there is a less clear connection between speech and behavior, the matter is murky. My own view, for reasons far too detailed to lay out here, is that hate-speech toward "groups" (at least certain kinds of group) should in general be subject to civil group-libel laws but not to criminal punishment. FWIW.

Ferrel... Indeed, the matter is murky.

• Even using masculine pronouns in the grammatically sanctioned way as to refer to men and women indifferently can cause offense and is now being banned from college campuses across America. Bill C-16 which is now in the Canadian Senate as of June 2017 has amended current human rights legislation, which seeks to provide protections and rights for the transgendered by Criminal Code. It is a piece of legislation that requires Canadians to offer a particular form of address, by the use of non-gender specific pronouns, that has particular ideological implications. The bill has legislation which may be an unprecedented infringement on freedom of expression. In our present time, criminal charges are being administered on the basis of a construed dissent of hate speech. The question now being posed in discussions is whether or not someone will be charged simply for stating that they will act out by a value or idea that is unauthorized by the government. Senator Cathy Wagantall (2016) voices concern on how the “bill would cause fear for many Canadians that they would not be able to even discuss public policy issues such as this one because they disagree with the government's imposed agenda.” Many Canadian reporters find that the drafting of the bill will have more of a negative effect rather than a positive result. In fact, the bill will not create rights for the transgendered as much as it will take away rights from women and girls. Such legislation to disallow speech which is considered not only hurtful but harmful seems to be an extraordinary devaluing of women who have struggled for centuries to become free from the value system that apportions their worth based on their physical appeal and sexual allure.
• It is in this context that I ask: Would forbidding "discriminatory" opinion give such opinions a special allure? Since there is a strong causal connection, given human nature, between speech and behavior, would the lack of free speech enable and/or allow for the opinions to rampage out of control, being free from the arguments that would expose them to ridicule?

This is way too complex a subject to discuss in this back-and-forth brief-answer setting. I recommend the works of thorough thinkers, notably the late Joel Feinberg, to answer your basic concerns. There are indeed forces at work today creating horribly unwarranted restrictions on freedom of speech--but again, only the details can tell where best to "draw the line". That said, there are two key distinctions I should have made earlier: between speech that merely offends and speech likely to cause genuine harm, and between the common-law concepts of "comment" vs. claims of [empirical] "fact". I believe they contain the main clues regarding where and how firmly to draw the lines between fully protected speech, partially protected speech and warrantedly prohibited speech. That is about as much as I can say in this forum.