From Refuge to Rejection:
When Ideological Extremes Betray the Promise of Liberty
Recently, I’ve been hearing from many people who feel “politically homeless” but are hesitant to talk about it openly. Most of these individuals have identified as liberal, Democrat, progressive, or leftist. Some consider themselves moderates or independents. There seems to be a growing fear around expressing opinions, views, or thoughts on any social or political issue. I know the feeling—but for me, that fear has been outweighed by a deeper sense of discomfort, hypocrisy, and a sense of obligation.
I came to this country as an intellectual refugee—a female immigrant and a seeker of freedom and liberty. I never imagined that 25 years later, I would find myself once again under the same paranoia and pressure of mob mentalities that dictate who gets to survive and who must be canceled. Ideology is dangerous because it stems from ideals—abstract concepts that will never fully materialize. No single ideology can satisfy, please, or convince an entire society, let alone its vast majority.
By definition, liberalism holds that no one belief system should dominate the social narrative. “Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy centered on individual liberty and limited government. It emphasizes individual rights, including civil and human rights, and supports principles like democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Liberals advocate for freedom of speech, the press, assembly, and religion,” according to the definition Google returns. The Oxford Dictionary defines liberalism as:
Willingness to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one's own; openness to new ideas.
A political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.
This is why I continue to identify as a liberal—I believe in all of that. But today, not everyone who identifies as liberal practices these principles. Allowing others the freedom to live as they choose means accepting that they may not live as we live, believe what we believe, or adopt our convictions. I never thought the day would come when the simplest aspect of my identity—that of a woman, a survivor of religious trauma and cultural oppression—would become the most controversial and rejected part of my liberated self. I also never imagined that because of my identity and beliefs, I would once again be silenced by the very society I sought as refuge—for my individual safety and freedom of existence.
I recently wrote a blog that turned out to be more prophetic than I ever expected. It stirred intense anger and hatred, and confirmed my deep frustration with where we are as a society. We’ve lost the ability to engage in dialogue, discourse, debate, questioning, or disagreement in a respectful and tolerant way. Despite asserting my belief in the biological existence of male and female as binary sexes, I also affirmed my allyship to those who live along the gender spectrum and to those who identify as trans. Many of us hold both of these truths comfortably. The idea that one must choose a single side exclusively in this debate is a foundationally extremist view—it contradicts liberty and democracy.
The main argument against me is that I’m fundamentally wrong in my views. The difference is, I choose to hold my views while fully granting others the right to have theirs. What I cannot understand is why many of the same individuals who treat this topic as non-negotiable and who reject Christianity for being “homophobic/transphobic” are also the ones who defend Islam, a religion that oppresses women and girls and punishes homosexuality by death. I raise this point because it forms the core of my argument and belief system on a personal level. As a woman who has lived under extreme oppression—subjected to brutal laws and abusive power simply for being born with a vagina, and discriminated against on the basis of sex —I refuse to reduce that fact into something negotiable or dismissible. It is a reality for many around the world.
Having to constantly defend my lived experience, while simultaneously recognizing, accepting, and respecting the lived experiences of others, is an exhausting and one-sided effort. I’ve seen people walk away from conversations like these—conversations where they were attacked, shamed, and “schooled”—only to flee at full speed toward the "other side," where they ultimately abandon any sense of empathy and acceptance they once held for those who have now become their harshest critics.
What’s most disappointing is the tendency of those who hold my views in contempt to go out of their way to avoid me. I’m not averse to discussion. I welcome calm, respectful conversations. I can even handle hostile and critical debates. What I cannot accept is this rigid, self-righteous stance that manifests as a cult-like mentality—one that leaves no room for dialogue, let alone compromise.
I don’t believe a healthy society can thrive when we cling to such rigidity. The entire argument is built on the idea that everything exists on a spectrum, that the binary is false. And yet, this very issue is treated in binary terms: you are either with us or against us. There is no spectrum allowed for thought, belief, or interpretation rooted in lived experience and cultural identity. That, by definition, is prejudice.
I still believe in the promise of liberalism—the kind that is manifested in tolerance, dialogue, and individual liberty. My views are not an attempt to impose, but to express, shaped by a life lived under repression and a hard-earned freedom I refuse to take for granted. If we truly value diversity, we must also make space for ideological diversity, even when it challenges us. Despite the current climate, I remain hopeful that we can return to a culture where disagreement is not dangerous, but necessary—where lived experiences can coexist without being weaponized or erased.
The author is a Middle Eastern immigrant, writer, and educator who fled religious authoritarianism and has spent her life advocating for women's rights and cultural inclusion.
