Politics has become more prominent because of people insisting that it has to be. "silence is violence" and even open software projects must take a stand on the issue of the day: the correct stance mind you; attempting to be neutral is the same as joining the Philistines.
Other side: "We should arrest or do violence to trans people, because they are abominations, groomers, and freaks"
You: "You both make good points, who could say? The right answer is probably between 'persecute' and 'not persecute'. I am enlightened."
One side: "We should acknowledge trans people and let them live their lives"
Other side: "Yeah, but it seems unfair to biological females to allow trans women to compete in competitive athletics"
First side: "You're denying the reality of trans people, and should be silenced."
My stance on trans people is not what you characterize; but it is not relevant to this discussion. There are many places where one's stance on $(political_issue) is not relevant, and that does not automatically imply that someone is taking the side opposite yours.
This is a super common attitude across all areas of politics, that somehow being neutral is admirable or positive. That it implies an absence of partisanism, and is therefore preferable.
That's fine when you are talking about, say, which coffee chain you like. But in today's politics, the issues being discussed are fundamental human rights for various groups. Being neutral when there is a massive power disparity empowers those who hold the majority.
Aren't stakes in politics typically fairly high? I would figure a coffee chain level of concern would have to be an anomaly.
It's not saying both sides have good points -- it's saying we're talking about something completely different, and neither side is on topic.