The problems that you describe mostly aren't with liberalism, and contain far far deeper contradictions on their own.
It is true that individualism is overrated, even within the most enlightened flavor of liberalism. The primacy of the individual is a central tenet of liberalism. There is, indeed, a conflict between individuals in some cases, but liberalism has one of the best solutions to that which has ever been devised, which is, in case of conflict your rights are equal. Even though exactly what that means is a matter of dispute, it is at least a principled solution that, if achievable, works pretty well with human nature (across very many cultures). Almost nothing else has that.
Individualism has a very deep justification that you don't address: individuals feel things. This makes what happens to individuals morally salient in the way that little else is. If Biden or Modi or Xi or Kishida or Sunak whoever else makes disparaging comments about women, the classification "women" does not feel pain or insult or any such thing. The impact, if any, is felt by actual individuals.
The problem with viewing identity groups as a contradiction to liberalism is that they are themselves without moral grounding. Furthermore, they are even more perversely contradictory: if someone makes comments that hurts women relative to men, helps Christians relative to atheists, and shifts the balance of power away from Asians and towards Hispanics, an identity-based viewpoint has no coherent way to say whether this was good or bad overall or at the individual level unless you also start deciding that the interests of rapists and Nazis and flat earthers are of equal value to the interests of the other groups. You can avoid the contradiction for a little while with intersectionality, but ultimately you end up with an enormous pile of intersectional identities, each without intrinsic moral worth, suffused with a myriad of conflicting interests, and whose members (like good tribe-members do) elevate in-group concerns and diminish out-group interests. It's an utter mess.
Where liberalism is going awry has nothing to do with identity categories per se. Instead it is mostly with failing to uphold the moral worth of the individual. It's gotten lazy: treating corporations as if they were people, neglecting to be wise custodians of a social environment that individuals absolutely depend upon to thrive, acting over and over and over again as if some people are more equal than others, and failing to invest in future individuals because everyone's too busy deferring to the immediate (and advertising-exacerbated) needs of existing individuals.
But all individuals die. If your moral system fails to account for the needs of the next generation, it is a moral dead end.
Working class people in capitalist societies feel the effective loss of personal moral value because they do not receive adequate economic value to reliably sustain a decent life.
Vietnamese feel ill-disposed towards an American invasion precisely because invasion does not endorse the personal moral value of Vietnamese people.
The contradictions are not intrinsic--they arise from the accumulated cruft on top of pro-socially tweaked liberalism.
If liberalism is unsustainable or contradictory, it will be because of near-existential-scale threats like climate change, wherein the needs of the future are in such stark contrast to the easy path for the individual that individualism would lead inexorably to doom.