In today’s political climate, truth is often sacrificed for expediency, with both sides guilty of bending facts to suit their agendas. Whether it’s discussions on marriage equality or gender identity, the abandonment of honest dialogue has dangerous consequences, stifling meaningful conversation and hindering genuine progress.

One thing I’ve observed, and it’s been gnawing at me for a while, is how willing we’ve become in modern political discourse to sacrifice truth on the altar of expediency. This isn’t just something confined to one side of the political spectrum. It’s a widespread, non-discriminatory tactic that’s employed by both the left and the right. And that’s precisely the problem – the truth is being sidelined, and in the long run, that will cost us dearly.

Let’s take a step back and look at some examples. Remember when the Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Prop 8 were all over the headlines? During the fight for marriage equality, the rallying cry in favor of same-sex marriage was that individuals were “born that way.” It’s a powerful claim, emotionally charged, and it served its purpose at the time – the laws were changed, and same-sex couples gained the right to marry.

But here’s where things get tricky. Since that political battle was won, we’ve seen scientific evidence suggesting that the idea of being “born” with a specific sexual orientation is, well, unsubstantiated. At the time, people likely knew this wasn’t entirely accurate, but the claim was repeated, over and over, because it supported the cause. There’s no doubt the issue of sexual orientation is complex, but the use of such a statement for political gain sidelined a deeper, nuanced conversation that should have taken place. The truth became less important than achieving a desired political outcome.

Now, fast forward to today, and we see a similar pattern emerging in discussions around gender identity. It’s been claimed that gender is purely a social construct, and that it can be fluid – meaning a person’s gender can shift over time. This idea, often framed as a justification for certain trans rights, follows the same kind of political narrative we saw before. Only this time, we’ve moved from “you’re born that way” to “it can change,” depending on what’s politically advantageous at the moment.

Let me be clear: I’m not saying people shouldn’t have the right to identify however they want. We live in a free society, and people can make choices about how they live their lives. But to justify those choices with a narrative that bends or outright denies the truth? That’s where we run into problems. We’re seeing the same sacrifice of truth, this time under a different banner. It’s expedient, but it’s not honest.

The real kicker here is that we simply don’t know enough about the long-term effects of certain decisions, particularly when it comes to medical interventions for young people. And what’s worse, we’re not even allowed to have an open, honest conversation about it. Why? Because truth is inconvenient, and in the realm of politics, it often gets thrown aside when it doesn’t align with a particular agenda.

The right is no better in this regard. Both sides are guilty. When the facts don’t support their argument, they simply disregard them or create new “facts” to suit their narrative. And it’s frustrating because we can’t have real dialogue in this environment. We’re trapped in echo chambers, listening to the drumbeat of our respective political tribes, while the truth lies ignored in the middle of the battlefield.

And that brings me to the heart of the issue: sacrificing truth for political expediency isn’t just a bad strategy – it’s dangerous. We’ve come to a point where truth is malleable, where it can be reshaped to suit the moment. But the problem is, once you start down that path, there’s no telling where it leads. If we can’t even agree on basic truths, how can we possibly engage in meaningful, productive dialogue? The answer is simple: we can’t.

The worst part of this whole situation is that, in private, many of these individuals will readily admit that they’re playing fast and loose with the narrative. They’ll concede that they’re bending the truth but argue that the ends justify the means. “Lie if you have to,” they’ll say, because the cause is more important than honesty. It’s disheartening, even infuriating, to watch truth being manipulated and twisted to fit an agenda. How terrible it is to take something as foundational as the truth and do so much violence to it, all in the name of achieving a desired outcome. This willingness to sacrifice truth undermines the very principles that should guide our discourse and erodes trust in the process itself.

Even worse is the fact that the case can often be made without the need to soil our character or distort the truth. Yes, it’s harder to be honest with the facts and evidence; it takes time and patience to present the full complexity of an issue. It’s far more challenging than reducing the argument to a tweet or soundbite. But perhaps what’s really too much for some people is that engaging with the truth might change their minds. The fear of confronting uncomfortable realities is what often drives this dishonesty. Many simply can’t handle the possibility that the truth might force them to rethink their position, so they cling to convenient, simplified narratives instead.

This isn’t just about progressives or conservatives. It’s about human beings trying to navigate a complicated, chaotic world. And if we can’t hold on to truth – even when it’s inconvenient, even when it challenges our worldview – then we’re doomed to keep repeating the same mistakes. It’s time to put truth back where it belongs – at the center of our political discourse.

And maybe, just maybe, we’ll begin to see the way forward.

What do you think?

• How do you think we can maintain truth in political discourse without sacrificing progress or individual rights?
• Have you noticed any other examples where political narratives have overshadowed truth? How do you think that affects our ability to have real dialogue?
• What role do you believe science and evidence should play in shaping political debates, especially when it comes to complex issues like gender identity or marriage equality?