Opposition to gerrymandering tends to make intuitive sense, but there are usually multiple incompatible ideas used to criticize gerrymandering, so the more I've looked into it the less convinced I've become that gerrymandering is a problem. For example, one argument that anti-gerrymanderers make is that natural, non-gerrymandered districts should produce more competitive races, another is the idea that the party makeup of the elected legislators should roughly match the voted preferences of the voters. So let's imagine an election where party A's candidates get 51% of the vote and party B's candidates get 49% of the vote. What should happen, party A wins a 51/49 victory in every district because everything was equally competitive, or 51% of the victories should be by party A and 49% by party B?

Personally I think the gerrymandering debate leans too heavily into the idea that "parties" are static and work kind of like demographic traits. Nobody forces a party to select issues and candidates that result in the geographic pattern of support they get. Parties are a strategy! They ought to be able to adapt.