"I, a young Anglo-Catholic person, like Episcopal liturgy just the way it is and see no need for revision."
Okay.
Let's talk about survivorship bias. Survivorship bias is interesting and important to understand. If you don't know what it is already, go read about it. Quick gist: It's the logical error of concentrating on people who made it through some kind of selection process, without considering who didn't.

Nobody: now do Tertullian

Therefore this whole revolving scheme of things is an attestation of the resurrection of the dead. God wrote down resurrection in
works before he put it in writing; he preached it by acts of flotation before he told of it in words. He first gave you Ever Given for a teacher, intending also to add prophecy, so that as previously a disciple of Ever Given you might the more readily believe prophecy, might at once assent on hearing what you had already everywhere #onhere seen,

Okay, I really do have a day job, but here goes. Thread. :-)
I sometimes see people say, “Worship isn’t for us anyway. It’s for God.” People usually leave it there but I gather that the implication is to shut down pro-revisionist arguments that some of our current liturgies and liturgical practices don’t connect with people’s hearts and lives very well.

@elizabeth_loupe There's a very real sense in which we seem unable to move on from gendered language, even though people have literally been reflecting on it liturgically and theologically for forty-plus years now. @elizabeth_loupe So, you might be surprised by just how much thinking that gendered language should be addressed puts you firmly in the pro-revision camp. :-)
As I think you mentioned earlier, it troubles me a fair bit that the actual book in our actual pews, which a guest might flip through...

I AM SO SO TIRED OF panels/feature issues/essay series on liturgical revision that:
A. Feature one pro-revision voice and 2-3 anti, always given the last word; AND
B. The pro-revision voice is literally always Ruth Meyers.
Dr. Meyers is great, I love hearing/reading her, but - - ALWAYS having her be the Voice for Revision only feeds the impression that almost nobody else wants revision. There are people who literally believe that if it weren't for Dr. Meyers, the whole revision issue would just go away.

Want an example? Here’s an example. A few years ago - let’s say 2014 or ’15, because I know it was on my mind during General Convention in ’15 - I read Prayer #18 as part of our Sunday morning worship, probably as an extra collect at the end of the Prayers of the People, ... .... probably on the weekend closest to the 4th of July. Like you do.
Prayer #18 is “For Our Country.” It’s the one that begins, “Almighty God, who hast given us this good land for our heritage: We humbly beseech thee….” And so on.

I have put three minutes’ thought into #WAT and here is a thing I can put my finger on.
When WAT is being its WATtiest, about half the time I feel like I’m the butt of the joke. Not personally but categorically. Usually for reasons having to do with liturgy; occasionally gender. About the other half of the time, I just feel like the joke is kind of embarrassing. Not what I want onlookers to think the Bright Young Leaders of my church are spending their time talking about.