Other people have opinions, you have a pair of them
Where most people arrive at a view and defend it, you arrive at two and hold them both. Uranus travelled through Libra from 1968 to 1975, so the reworking of how sides relate to each other is common material; the third house is where yours landed, in speech and everyday thought.
That produces a mind that cannot state a position without the counterposition attached. It is genuinely how you think rather than a rhetorical habit, and it makes you unusually good at argument and unusually hard to recruit. Neither of those is a side effect; they are the same equipment used from different angles.
Read as evasive, running on symmetry
Ask you a direct question and you supply context, qualification and the other reading, which people hear as refusing to answer. What is happening is that the unqualified version would be untrue and you cannot make yourself say it. Giving the short answer first and the qualifications second gets you both accuracy and credibility, and the order is the whole trick.
The position moves when the weight moves
You will defend a view vigorously and then, once it has become the majority position, find yourself arguing the other side. This looks like inconsistency and is closer to a commitment to whatever is currently underrepresented. Knowing that about yourself matters, because it means your stated view sometimes describes the room rather than the question.
You can make anybody's case better than they can
Given a position you disagree with, you can state it more persuasively than its holder, and this is rare enough to be a professional asset in mediation, law, policy or negotiation. It also disarms people completely in ordinary disputes. Using it deliberately — putting their case first, in your own words — ends more arguments than any amount of being right.
A body of translations between people who disagree
What accumulates over years is a set of ways to say one camp's point in the other camp's language, built up case by case and stored nowhere. It is the reason people bring you conflicts. Writing down the three or four moves you use most would let somebody else use them, which is a better legacy than being permanently the only person in the room who can do it.
Friends who do not know each other's opinions
Your circle contains people who would find each other unbearable, and you maintain all of it by giving each of them a slightly different version of yourself. None of the versions is dishonest. It does mean you are never entirely at ease, because any gathering risks a collision. Putting two of them together on purpose, once, is less catastrophic than you imagine and considerably less work than the current arrangement.
The person sent in when two departments have stopped talking
Situations where two groups need each other and cannot communicate are where your value peaks, and most organisations have several running at any time. The trap is that the work is invisible when it succeeds. Getting the assignment defined and named beforehand, rather than being drawn in informally, is what makes it count towards anything.
You were the one who could talk to both of them
When the household divided, you were the one both sides would speak to, and the position was assigned long before you could have declined it. It made you skilled and it cost you having anywhere to be simply upset. That skill is now the reason nobody asks how you are. Telling one relative that you would like to be on a side occasionally is a strange sentence to say and an accurate one.
The strain of holding both
Keeping two positions live at once is real cognitive work, and it shows up as a wound-up quality that persists after the conversation ends, plus sleep that will not close down while a question is unresolved. Deciding something arbitrarily, in a case where the outcome does not matter much, is a surprisingly effective release and can be practised on small things.
You will state their case for them, mid-argument
In a disagreement with a partner you find yourself explaining their position better than they just did, which is generous and completely infuriating to be on the receiving end of. It removes their argument from them. The alternative is not staying silent: it is asking them to finish before you improve on it, and then answering what they actually said rather than the stronger version you constructed.