Interesting article. I would argue that in a hyper polarised environment, that a filibuster is not a burden. This is an issue that sees the country fairly evenly split. Let's say for simplicity that 25% of the country are progressive, and 25% are religiously fundamental. The remaining 50% of centrists have a duty to explore the topic fully and to discuss the matter without recourse to petty acts of putting up flags and notes to piss each other off.

It is more than possible to be opposed to trans-activists demands without being transphobic - a nuanced position that has been largely overlooked in the heated rhetoric of social media. We have a different legal system over here - and the Tavistock clinic, the charity Mermaids, and the Good Law Project are going hell for leather the high courts over puberty blockers and child protection concerns after Keira Bell took the Tavistock to court. These are complicated issues that need to be discussed, debated and considered in the fullness of time - not voted through due to expediency and at the whim of public sentiment.

Just because legislation is progressive does not mean that it is morally correct. There are always unintended consequences that need to be mitigated and considered. The Us Vs Them approach of your Senate is entirely unhelpful, as it also shapes the discourse.... 'if you disagree with me, you are evil'. Disagreement is not oppression.