By Luke Lattanzi | Staff Writer
In an era of unprecedented polarization and partisanship, pleas for compromise and “middle-of-the-road” solutions are common — so much so that some begin to erroneously pursue compromise as an end in itself.
Such an attitude has become a major pet peeve of mine, not because I am opposed to the idea of compromise, but because it is so commonly invoked as an end in itself. No matter how nonnegotiable two sides may be, chronic compromisers, as I like to call them, insist that there is always a middle ground to be found somewhere. Where specifically it may reside, they have yet to clarify beyond the abstract.
Perhaps this is due to most people only having, say, an “entry-level” understanding of political discussion. In an era of 280 characters where an increasing number of political debates happen online, oftentimes there is simply no room for expounding upon the cultural and philosophical underpinnings of what would otherwise be considered surface-level topics in contemporary American political discourse.
Seldom do we recognize that oftentimes our “political” polarization is actually the result of a deeper cultural polarization in which basic, foundational preconceptions about human nature — and how one ought to live among others — are being called into question. Our chronic compromisers (bless their hearts) do not realize this. Instead, they appeal to tired platitudes about the virtue of compromise, how our nation’s founders compromised and how we should too because of “the American Experiment” or something. But compromise as a virtue is ultimately dependent on what we are actually compromising on and whether or not two sides can actually be reconciled within a broader political and cultural framework.
Unfortunately, one of the largest samples of chronic compromiser content I have seen has actually been this very newspaper’s opinion section. Every semester, The Lariat publishes an assortment of columns revolving around the theme of compromise and the rejection of tribalism — all with noble intentions. But what happens when these noble intentions come without proper consideration for how deep these divisions actually are?
Among others, a prime example can be found in a column published last semester in which the writer invoked the transgender debate in an attempt to urge compromise and to “carry conversation with care.”
“First, by restricting the answers to ‘yes’ or ‘no,’ it forces people to choose a side, restricting their ability to have a discussion and form a compromise,” the author writes. “We leave the situation divided rather than educated on the ideas of others, which furthers polarization in our society.”
In context, the author was commenting on a live poll done on campus by a student organization, Network of Enlightened Women. The poll was conducted in response to advertisements for an on-campus event featuring Riley Gaines — the NCAA Division 1 swimmer who lost to transgender swimmer Lia Thomas in the Women’s Swimming Championship — asking whether or not biological men can compete in women’s sports.
The argument made in the piece is that, by reducing the transgender debate to a “yes” or “no” question, we do nothing but exacerbate the polarization caused by the debate. The problem with this argument, however, is that the transgender debate is quite literally a “yes” or “no” question.
At the heart of the transgender debate are two main camps. One camp believes gender is a social construction completely detached from biological sex and dependent upon an individual’s subjective experience — and therefore, one can willfully and fluidly transition between the two. Many in this camp deny a gender binary altogether, insisting that there are more than two genders. The other camp is the total opposite, believing that gender and sex are not separate and that no amount of ideological pontification can deny the immutability (or objectivity) of certain biological and physiological characteristics.
The reason for this particular dispute being such a virulent and polarizing one isn’t simply because of politics. We are no longer simply fighting over how high or low corporate tax rates should be or how much money we should be spending on the military. Properly understood, the transgender debate is predicated upon a more foundational debate about human nature. Either human beings are bound by objective natural constants that are mutually reinforcing — such as biological and physiological characteristics — or they aren’t. There is simply no way to logically reconcile or “compromise” between two entirely different philosophical positions on human nature. Whatever side of this debate you’re on, one will inevitably win out. Which side gets to claim victory over the other has yet to be determined.
Select writers for our opinion section then ask, “So, how should we address these types of controversial questions? We need to be able to create safe spaces for these discussions. That means acknowledging that everyone’s experiences are valid, recognizing that their political philosophy does not determine their worth as a human being and using respectful rhetoric.”
Really? Everyone’s experiences are valid? What is the point of having a debate at all if one cannot challenge the validity of certain positions and experiences? There is certainly nothing wrong with hearing what someone has to say and having respectful conversations. And yes, your political philosophy certainly doesn’t determine your inherent worth as a human being, but it does reveal a lot about how you view the world, and those views may very well be valid or invalid.
None of this is to say that we should be averse to the idea or spirit of compromise. In fact, there are numerous political debates, particularly debates on policy, that I believe would significantly benefit from more robust efforts of collaboration. Policy discussions on health care, the social safety net or taxes come to mind. But when we start getting into the more foundational aspects of political and cultural life, like whether or not gender or sex exist in an objective reality, the effort to seek a middle ground becomes intellectually dishonest and logically fallacious because a middle ground simply does not exist.
