Hitchens contends that the left's use of 'phobia' labels to describe opposition opinions not only ends meaningful discussion but also unfairly categorizes dissent as a form of mental illness, which he views as a tactic to dominate the cultural and political narrative. He makes valid points about the potential for such terms to be misused to shut down legitimate debates and the importance of protecting free speech, but his argument sometimes oversimplifies complex issues and employs emotionally charged language, which detracts from the validity of his points.

First, Hitchens calls out those who are quick to label certain criticisms as "phobias," essentially accusing them of committing the loaded language and guilt by association fallacies.

The truth is that the invention of all these 'phobias' is a brilliant piece of political trickery. It works because it is so hard to fight.

Most people are distressed and scared to find their opinions classified as a sort of mental illness. Any view or position the new liberal elite disagree with is not treated as an opinion. It is treated as a disease of the mind, a fearful derangement, to be greeted with disdain and pushed out of the national conversation.

This is the most cogent part of Hitchen's argument, and if he had focused on this alone, his essay would be stronger, from a logical point of view.

To label a political opinion a "phobia" is to use loaded language which seeks to associate it with mental illness and thereby remove it from the realm of rational debate. Such a label should be used with extreme caution, but often is not. It's fair game for Hitchens to call out the potential for the "phobia" suffix to be employed fallaciously.

Hitchens commits some fallacies of his own, however, in expanding on this valid point.

1. guilt by association • Hitchens attempts to link those who use the term "phobia" to the Soviet mistreatment of Koryagin:

Anatoly Koryagin [is] a Soviet psychiatrist who protested against the abuse of psychiatry to classify opponents of Communism as mentally ill. This is a common problem of the Left. They think they are so good that they must be right and that anyone who opposes them must be mad. ​...I have always thought that this event was the slimy rock-bottom of every political opinion which makes its holders think they are too good to be opposed.

Although an analogy can be drawn between someone labeling an opposing view a "phobia" and the Soviets labeling their detractors mentally ill, the Soviet program was far more extreme, and went as far as putting forward psychiatric assessments that were trumped up or fabricated. This is an unfair and exaggerated association for Hitchens to make.

2. appeal to emotion • Hitchens closes by recounting Koryagin's harrowing experiences, to evoke an emotional response from the reader:

Koryagin was locked up in prison because he had written - about the twisting of psychiatry - to the British medical journal, The Lancet. He protested by going on hunger strike. He was forcibly fed, drugged with dangerous 'anti-psychotic' chemicals, and, of course, beaten up. At one point, his wife managed to visit him but could not recognise him.

In combination with the guilt by association, above, this seeks to attach the emotions aroused in the reader with the allegedly comparable practice of those who use the "phobia" suffix. This functions to project the emotions raised by Koryagin's plight onto the current debate, distracting from the question of why certain "phobia" terms are used in contexts today that are very different from Koryagin's.