Today, my internal compass points to a topic that brings a deep, simmering frustration to the surface, one that casts a heavy cloud over so much of our political discourse: I’m Tired of ‘Both Sides’ Arguments—Because One of Them Wants Me To Not Exist.
You often hear the refrain, particularly in media and polite conversation: “We need to hear both sides.” “There are good points on all sides.” “We need to find common ground.” And in many debates – tax policy, infrastructure spending, even certain approaches to education reform – that sentiment holds true. Healthy democracies require vigorous debate, compromise, and a willingness to understand differing viewpoints. That’s how we navigate complex issues and find solutions that benefit the whole. But what happens when one “side” fundamentally challenges the humanity, existence, or basic rights of the other? What then? For me, as a gay man and a liberal Democrat, this isn’t a theoretical question; it’s the lived reality of political discourse today, and it’s an exhausting, infuriating, and often terrifying experience. The prevailing winds of political rhetoric often feel like a constant gale trying to push me back into the shadows.
The False Equivalence: When One Side Isn’t Just ‘Different’
The fundamental flaw in the ubiquitous “both sides” argument, particularly in current American politics, is the notion of false equivalence. It assumes that all political positions exist on a spectrum of valid, good-faith disagreements, amenable to rational debate and compromise. But this is a dangerous illusion when one side’s platform openly advocates for policies that strip away rights, inflict harm, or deny the very existence of marginalized groups.
Let me be unequivocally clear: my identity as a gay man is not a political opinion. My right to exist, to love, to marry, to live free from discrimination, is not a “side” to be debated or compromised upon. When one political faction actively pushes legislation that targets queer individuals, particularly transgender people, criminalizes healthcare, bans books that affirm LGBTQ+ lives, or uses dehumanizing rhetoric to incite prejudice, that is not simply a “different viewpoint.” That is an attack on my fundamental humanity and the humanity of my community.
-
Anti-LGBTQ+ Legislation: As I’ve discussed in previous posts, we’ve seen a relentless surge in anti-LGBTQ+ legislation, especially targeting trans individuals. These aren’t minor policy disputes; they are attempts to control bodies, deny medical care, erase identities, and criminalize existence. When one side argues for universal healthcare, and the other argues for banning gender-affirming care for adults and children, those are not “two sides” of the same coin of policy; one is about providing care, the other is about restricting it based on prejudice. One side aims for healing and flourishing, the other aims for control and erasure.
-
Reproductive Rights: The ongoing assault on abortion freedom, rolling back decades of established rights, is another stark example. This isn’t just about different approaches to healthcare; it’s about bodily autonomy, gender equality, and forcing individuals to carry unwanted pregnancies, often with devastating consequences (as my RN experience has painfully shown). When one side celebrates taking away a woman’s fundamental right to choose, that is not a debate; it is an imposition of control that profoundly impacts half the population.
-
Dehumanizing Rhetoric: Beyond specific laws, the language used by some political figures is deeply chilling. The use of dehumanizing terms, the intentional misgendering, the fear-mongering about LGBTQ+ people “grooming” children, the racist and xenophobic tropes – this is not simply “strong language” or “passionate debate.” This is hate speech designed to incite fear, demonize entire groups, and justify discrimination and violence. When one side uses such language, and the other side fails to unequivocally condemn it (or even amplifies it), there is no “both sides” to be found. There is a fundamental moral divide.
The Exhaustion of Constant Justification: Clearing the Sky of Misunderstanding
The constant demand for “both sides” can be utterly exhausting for marginalized individuals. It forces us into a perpetual state of justifying our very existence, our rights, and our humanity. It places the burden of education and empathy squarely on the shoulders of the victim, rather than on those perpetuating the harm or those who benefit from the status quo.
-
It’s Not a Debate About My Existence: When I hear calls for “both sides” on issues like marriage equality or trans rights, it implicitly frames my identity as a political football, something up for public debate and vote. My identity is a fact, not a policy proposal.
-
Emotional Labor: Constantly engaging with arguments that deny your rights or demonize your community is emotionally draining. It’s a heavy cloud that hangs over everyday interactions, making seemingly simple conversations laden with unspoken tension. As I’ve discussed with my experience with “Karens,” managing emotional labor is a skill, but it shouldn’t be a constant requirement for basic human respect.
-
Diverting from Real Issues: The obsessive focus on “culture war” issues (often designed to inflame and divide) by one side often diverts attention from critical societal problems that actually require bipartisan cooperation: wealth inequality, climate change, crumbling infrastructure, affordable housing, and true healthcare reform.
The Horizon of True Discourse: Seeking Common Ground on Shared Humanity
So, where do we find common ground, if not in the “both sides” fallacy? We find it by first establishing unnegotiable principles: universal human rights, dignity, and equality for all.
-
A Foundation of Humanity: We can debate how to achieve universal healthcare, but not whether everyone deserves access to care. We can debate economic policy, but not whether everyone deserves a fair chance at prosperity. We can debate criminal justice reform, but not whether all lives have equal value.
-
Distinguish Policy from Personhood: We can have vigorous debates about policy choices without ever dehumanizing or denying the rights of the people impacted by those policies. Disagree with my political philosophy? Fine. Disagree with my economic solutions? Absolutely. But do not use my identity as a weapon, or question my right to exist simply because I am gay.
-
Demand Moral Clarity: Leaders, media, and individuals have a responsibility to call out bigotry and hate speech unequivocally, regardless of its source or political affiliation. Silence in the face of hatred is complicity.
-
Focus on Shared Values: While political ideologies differ, fundamental values like community well-being, freedom (true freedom, not just freedom from others), safety, and opportunity are often shared. We build bridges on these common aspirations, not on validating arguments that seek to diminish others.
The “both sides” argument, when applied to issues of fundamental human rights, is not a path to understanding; it’s a dangerous compromise that emboldens prejudice and normalizes hatred. As an Atheist gay liberal Democrat living in Texas, I choose to engage, to advocate, and to speak my truth, even when it feels like shouting into a storm. My hope is for a clearer political sky, one where the prevailing winds carry the promise of true equality for all, and where the only “sides” are those genuinely working towards a more just and compassionate world. It’s time for the clouds of false equivalence to dissipate, revealing a horizon where every individual can live, thrive, and contribute to the collective good.
What are your thoughts on the “both sides” argument in current political discourse? How do you navigate conversations when one side feels inherently dehumanizing? Share your insights below – let’s keep this Social Swarm Speak generating crucial dialogue and pushing for clearer skies!