The threat to gay rights comes not just from the traditional religious right, but from an emerging, politically expedient alliance. This "horseshoe" coalition includes post-liberal conservatives and hard-left parties courting socially conservative immigrant communities, particularly religious Muslim constituencies in Europe.

The ideology of "wokeism" is positioned as a departure from traditional liberalism. While classical liberalism champions color-blind equality and individual merit, wokeism accentuates group differences based on race and gender. This focus on group identity is seen as a divisive tool used to expand state control over people's lives.

The left's inherent value of being open-minded becomes a strategic weakness when dealing with its own extremist factions. This 'open-mindedness to a fault' prevents liberals from establishing firm ideological boundaries against illiberal ideas, a capacity for internal conflict more developed on the political right.

A fringe element of the political right is beginning to mirror the 'woke left' by adopting similar tactics. This includes a focus on identity-based victimhood narratives and a preference for destroying and deplatforming opponents rather than engaging them in genuine debate.

Authoritarian regimes like Russia weaponize extreme examples of Western gender discourse, such as police calling male shooters 'female.' They use this to promote 'traditional values' diplomacy, portraying the West as perverse, which consolidates their soft power and hinders local LGBTQ+ rights.

The central societal conflict is not between men and women, but between liberal and illiberal ideologies. Progress has historically been supported by coalitions across genders, just as the patriarchy has female supporters. Framing issues as a battle of the sexes is a counterproductive oversimplification of a deeper ideological divide.

Legal frameworks to punish 'hate speech' are inherently dangerous because the definition is subjective and politically malleable. Advocating for such laws creates a tool that will inevitably be turned against its creators when political power shifts. The core principle of free speech is protecting even despicable speech to prevent this tyrannical cycle.

Unlike Judaism, which is largely an ethnic identity, Islam is a proselytizing set of ideas adopted by diverse races. Therefore, arguing against Islamic doctrines is a critique of an ideology, not a form of racism, making the analogy to anti-Semitism fundamentally flawed.

Quoting David Frum, Harris argues that open societies must confront the 'paradox of tolerance'—whereby tolerance can be exploited by illiberal forces to subvert a society from within. A failure by mainstream liberals to manage immigration and assimilation responsibly creates a political vacuum that authoritarian figures will eagerly fill.