Contrary to the belief in inevitable progress, gay rights are an extremely recent phenomenon in human history. The gains of the last few decades are not guaranteed and can be rolled back, much like a business going bankrupt "slowly then quickly," as societal support erodes over time.
The addition of a '+' to the LGBTQ acronym, representing 'genders and sexual orientations that language cannot yet describe,' is a strategic error. It frames the movement's demands as ongoing and potentially limitless, alienating the heterosexual majority by asking them to sign a 'blank check' for undefined societal changes.
A growing number of straight individuals are claiming a "queer" identity as "alphabet tourists" to gain social cachet as rebels. This is tone-deaf to the historical suffering of gay people who were involuntarily excluded. These tourists will likely abandon the community as soon as social tides turn against it.
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 movement's greatest successes, like marriage equality, came from its 'bourgeois normie' wing focused on inclusion. After these victories, this wing disengaged, allowing a radical faction—focused on upending norms like the nuclear family—to dominate. This alienates the majority and jeopardizes past gains.
The gay rights revolution was not an independent victory but an incidental consequence of broader societal shifts, analogized to Estonia's independence after the USSR's collapse. Straight society first changed marriage through contraception and no-fault divorce, creating a freedom-based paradigm that gay people were later included in.
When Western activists bundle gay rights with the destruction of all traditional norms (family, gender, monogamy), they create a political disaster for movements in socially conservative nations like Uganda. This all-or-nothing approach makes it impossible for local advocates to argue that accepting gay people doesn't require a total societal revolution.