Bathroom case closed

Now, that wasn’t so painful, was it?

Yes, it took a couple of years, some incremental changes along the way, some vote-flipping — and more than a few unfair accusations hurled against both sides.

But Massachusetts has now reached a bipartisan compromise on a bill to protect transgender individuals in public accommodations, including bathrooms and locker rooms.

And it’s within the power of other states, should they so choose, to do the same or something similar.

Whether one is happy with the outcome of yesterday’s vote — and the 36 House members who voted “no” surely aren’t happy — this is how our democratic system is supposed to work.

Of course, that is bad news for the Obama administration, which has no patience for the deliberative process. Last month, for example, the administration effectively ordered all public schools in the U.S. to make their bathrooms and locker rooms genderneutral, without consideration for state laws or existing policies.

That is guaranteed to further antagonize those who harbor legitimate privacy concerns, and to alienate those who might otherwise be coaxed into supporting a change in law.

And some outside Massachusetts will simply assume that passage of this bill was a slamdunk in this uber-progressive state. But there were strong pockets of resistance here.

When lawmakers last debated this issue just a few years ago, for example, supporters were unable to secure enough votes to expand protections for transgender individuals to all public accommodations, including restrooms.

Yesterday there was a passionate debate inside and outside the State House, including on the House floor.

And Gov. Charlie Baker couldn’t be convinced to back the law until supporters agreed to language clarifying that officials must take steps to protect against those who would abuse it.

But in the end, every voice was heard. In the House the “ayes” prevailed (the Senate has already passed a version of the bill).

And Bruce Springsteen never even had to get involved.