BurntAsh

There might also be ways with magic to have a kid without one of them being male.  One of them could get a spell that either causes her to be pregnant or to impregnate someone else (in a way, a spell that can make someone pregnant could be seen as an extension of "make more female"), or allows them to create a baby directly (I mean, it's possible one of them could transform into a baby Ellen-Nanase hybrid and the touch the diamond...).

I am unaware of one but I would be ASTOUNDED if you were the only one. And the term may well exist and probably does.
 
On top of this, add in the pressure to be 'normal'. It would not only discourage such individuals from discussing the matter but would make them prefer to not even think of it as many people are reluctant to think of themselves as 'not normal.' This pressure is not to be underestimated as it keeps many fully LGBTQIA* people from ever admitting what they are to themselves. *sigh*

And the thing is, I don't really buy either version of it. Because I'm looking at it from a wider scope where to create a connotation that Fox is somehow unique and special relies on a particular ideology to work. It's not a useful tool other than to be a dog whistle and a wink to the audience you hope to cultivate. Fox is no less an echo chamber than NBC is, and no more or less dangerous to the public at large. 
But I find it a bit funny that CNN, NBC and Fox are all huge conglomerates dating back quite a ways, but somehow Fox is somehow unique in that it isn't old guard, despite being run by the same sort of media moguls that run CNN and NBC. 
Defunding equates with limiting access. While it doesn't strike at the letter of Roe v Wade, it does strike at the spirit of it. And you only need to look to Texas' TRAP laws to see the effect that a national TRAP law could have on a larger scale. And as you say, while filibusters could hold things up, that's about the only real roadblock with the way things are right now.
This is actually a bigger issue than you suggest, because the bolded is EXACTLY the problem I'm afraid of seeing, because it comes hand in hand with other forms of discrimination. The trans community already faces issues maintaining employment and housing due to this form of discrimination, and codifying it into law that a business can decide to not serve customers due to this, also helps codify the practices of being able to fire someone for coming out as trans, or denying them housing (since it is a business arrangement). Especially if RFRA laws don't include exemptions, which many haven't really done. 
The religious grounds that have been used to justify segregation (and the "right" to deny black people service at stores and restaurants), and bans on interracial marriage, are now being used against the LGBT community, and we are seeing such laws being pushed in many states. Same for various transphobic bathroom bills with varying levels of success. Again, if we talk about erosion, these are the sorts of setbacks that if codified, have wider implications than usually thought about initially, and then have to build effort to undo them with another political landscape change. 
Agreed. Although so far, there's been movement to erode what is possible to erode at the state level, so it isn't entirely unfair to be concerned about that trickling up to the federal level with the current political landscape. Considering it's already happening piecemeal around the country.
And here's the thing, I'm not really sure any President's policies created any particular problem or boon for our economy. We had a massive recession happen not that long ago under Bush's watch. And how much good from lax regulation and enforcement was erased when the economic bubble popped? Would we have had a better recovery with more lax regulations under McCain or Romney? Not really convinced, actually. Short-term, perhaps, but would we just be feeding another bubble down the road and repeat the cycle?
But I'm also not very convinced that Trump's policies will get to the heart of the problem either. He's failed to target offshoring of middle-class tech jobs (which would be a good target for the blue collar jobs of the future), completely ignored H1Bs (which is an educational problem), hasn't really said word one about small businesses, and focused entirely on manufacturing, oil resources and big tech (who are looking for a solution to the educational problem). Manufacturing that will not be coming back to the US in the same shape it left. We still do a lot of manufacturing, despite losing just under 8 million jobs since 1980 on that front. We do more manufacturing now than we did in 1980. The automation that allows us to do more manufacturing with fewer people, is the same thing that would prevent a lot of job creation if we did bring a bunch of manufacturing back to the US through tariffs and other means. And the short term effect of those tariffs would be to hurt consumer spending, not improve it. And in the long term, the best you can hope for is that they produce locally, and provide a few jobs. But odds are automation will prevent us from ever seeing 1980s levels of manufacturing jobs. And at the end of the day, manufacturing is less than 10% of the job market in the US. Maybe you could get it up back into the double digits, but that's still going to leave a lot of people in the lurch looking for good jobs that aren't there. But it sure might help the rust belt a bit, assuming any manufacturing comes back to the rust belt instead of picking a new location. It's too complicated to really even have any idea how any of this will play out or if it will even move the needle in the face of the much larger economic engine.
I'd have loved to see something target small business specifically, because they employ over half the working population, produce roughly 2/3rds of the new jobs, and thus are something worth looking at if you want to move the lever. They'll benefit a bit from tax adjustments, but not nearly as much as the larger corporations. I'd have loved to see something about the protectionist laws that these larger businesses get from government that make it harder for competition to form in certain industries, but so far nothing. So I'm not convinced his policies will be any better or worse than Bush, Obama, Clinton, etc, etc. When you get too focused on a particular lever, or a particular economic ideology as the "correct approach", you wind up fiddling with your lever for four years while the larger economy continues to do what it does. And at the end you are left with the public picking or rejecting you based on the presumption that your little lever did more/less than it actually did. 
Here's the thing, I feel for the folks who are facing economic uncertainty due to how the jobs market has evolved over the last 30 years. It sucks when the growth is in locations you cannot uproot and move to, or in industries you have no experience in, while your industry is shedding jobs. But I've seen nothing from any candidate for 2016 that really gets to the heart of the matter and helps those in that situation in the long-term. Nor have I seen anything about steering the economy towards the industries of tomorrow where we face a constantly growing amount of automation. 
That's why I'm not terribly concerned about it, because I'm honestly not seeing anything coming from anyone that suggests picking someone based on their economic policies actually does jack diddly squat for the economy beyond steering investment decisions that were going to be made anyways, and maybe being able to steer towards certain markets and industries. Not so much how many jobs you'll get out of the deal/etc. So when I compare that to the reality that these newly gained rights are not as solid as they seem to be at first glance, there are areas where the rights are still lacking across the country, and we have members of a party that make it part of their platform to erode rights that we thought were settled decades ago, I'm going to be a bit more concerned about the rights side of things. 
 
EDIT: And I'll just add, that as a likely member of a community that faces discrimination in housing and employment already, it doesn't matter one whit to me what the economy does if people are allowed to limit or prevent me from being able to take part in it through their discriminatory behavior, protected by law. And that reality has already had an impact on how I feel like I can explore who I really am, even without Trump in the picture. But you can bet I am concerned for myself, and my sisters and brothers in similar situations. 

And the thing is, I don't really buy either version of it. Because I'm looking at it from a wider scope where to create a connotation that Fox is somehow unique and special relies on a particular ideology to work. It's not a useful tool other than to be a dog whistle and a wink to the audience you hope to cultivate. Fox is no less an echo chamber than NBC is, and no more or less dangerous to the public at large. 
But I find it a bit funny that CNN, NBC and Fox are all huge conglomerates dating back quite a ways, but somehow Fox is somehow unique in that it isn't old guard, despite being run by the same sort of media moguls that run CNN and NBC. 
Defunding equates with limiting access. While it doesn't strike at the letter of Roe v Wade, it does strike at the spirit of it. And you only need to look to Texas' TRAP laws to see the effect that a national TRAP law could have on a larger scale. And as you say, while filibusters could hold things up, that's about the only real roadblock with the way things are right now.
This is actually a bigger issue than you suggest, because the bolded is EXACTLY the problem I'm afraid of seeing, because it comes hand in hand with other forms of discrimination. The trans community already faces issues maintaining employment and housing due to this form of discrimination, and codifying it into law that a business can decide to not serve customers due to this, also helps codify the practices of being able to fire someone for coming out as trans, or denying them housing (since it is a business arrangement). Especially if RFRA laws don't include exemptions, which many haven't really done. 
The religious grounds that have been used to justify segregation (and the "right" to deny black people service at stores and restaurants), and bans on interracial marriage, are now being used against the LGBT community, and we are seeing such laws being pushed in many states. Same for various transphobic bathroom bills with varying levels of success. Again, if we talk about erosion, these are the sorts of setbacks that if codified, have wider implications than usually thought about initially, and then have to build effort to undo them with another political landscape change. 
Agreed. Although so far, there's been movement to erode what is possible to erode at the state level, so it isn't entirely unfair to be concerned about that trickling up to the federal level with the current political landscape. Considering it's already happening piecemeal around the country.
And here's the thing, I'm not really sure any President's policies created any particular problem or boon for our economy. We had a massive recession happen not that long ago under Bush's watch. And how much good from lax regulation and enforcement was erased when the economic bubble popped? Would we have had a better recovery with more lax regulations under McCain or Romney? Not really convinced, actually. Short-term, perhaps, but would we just be feeding another bubble down the road and repeat the cycle?
But I'm also not very convinced that Trump's policies will get to the heart of the problem either. He's failed to target offshoring of middle-class tech jobs (which would be a good target for the blue collar jobs of the future), completely ignored H1Bs (which is an educational problem), hasn't really said word one about small businesses, and focused entirely on manufacturing, oil resources and big tech (who are looking for a solution to the educational problem). Manufacturing that will not be coming back to the US in the same shape it left. We still do a lot of manufacturing, despite losing just under 8 million jobs since 1980 on that front. We do more manufacturing now than we did in 1980. The automation that allows us to do more manufacturing with fewer people, is the same thing that would prevent a lot of job creation if we did bring a bunch of manufacturing back to the US through tariffs and other means. And the short term effect of those tariffs would be to hurt consumer spending, not improve it. And in the long term, the best you can hope for is that they produce locally, and provide a few jobs. But odds are automation will prevent us from ever seeing 1980s levels of manufacturing jobs. And at the end of the day, manufacturing is less than 10% of the job market in the US. Maybe you could get it up back into the double digits, but that's still going to leave a lot of people in the lurch looking for good jobs that aren't there. But it sure might help the rust belt a bit, assuming any manufacturing comes back to the rust belt instead of picking a new location. It's too complicated to really even have any idea how any of this will play out or if it will even move the needle in the face of the much larger economic engine.
I'd have loved to see something target small business specifically, because they employ over half the working population, produce roughly 2/3rds of the new jobs, and thus are something worth looking at if you want to move the lever. They'll benefit a bit from tax adjustments, but not nearly as much as the larger corporations. I'd have loved to see something about the protectionist laws that these larger businesses get from government that make it harder for competition to form in certain industries, but so far nothing. So I'm not convinced his policies will be any better or worse than Bush, Obama, Clinton, etc, etc. When you get too focused on a particular lever, or a particular economic ideology as the "correct approach", you wind up fiddling with your lever for four years while the larger economy continues to do what it does. And at the end you are left with the public picking or rejecting you based on the presumption that your little lever did more/less than it actually did. 
Here's the thing, I feel for the folks who are facing economic uncertainty due to how the jobs market has evolved over the last 30 years. It sucks when the growth is in locations you cannot uproot and move to, or in industries you have no experience in, while your industry is shedding jobs. But I've seen nothing from any candidate for 2016 that really gets to the heart of the matter and helps those in that situation in the long-term. Nor have I seen anything about steering the economy towards the industries of tomorrow where we face a constantly growing amount of automation. 
That's why I'm not terribly concerned about it, because I'm honestly not seeing anything coming from anyone that suggests picking someone based on their economic policies actually does jack diddly squat for the economy beyond steering investment decisions that were going to be made anyways, and maybe being able to steer towards certain markets and industries. Not so much how many jobs you'll get out of the deal/etc. So when I compare that to the reality that these newly gained rights are not as solid as they seem to be at first glance, there are areas where the rights are still lacking across the country, and we have members of a party that make it part of their platform to erode rights that we thought were settled decades ago, I'm going to be a bit more concerned about the rights side of things. 
 
EDIT: And I'll just add, that as a likely member of a community that faces discrimination in housing and employment already, it doesn't matter one whit to me what the economy does if people are allowed to limit or prevent me from being able to take part in it through their discriminatory behavior, protected by law. And that reality has already had an impact on how I feel like I can explore who I really am, even without Trump in the picture. But you can bet I am concerned for myself, and my sisters and brothers in similar situations. 

But H5N1 is still Influenza, which isn't new. Nor does what emerges from the box have to remain static once its out. When we talk about gender identity, it is quite an old topic (many cultures do have some language that dates back far enough to demonstrate this). Western culture being forced to acknowledge it? That's a new thing. Previously, it was just erased as mental illness if acknowledged at all. Hell, we're still seeing society defend reparative therapy in the last few months for trans people. 
And again, you take what was meant to be colorful language, and are focusing on the more literal details of the analogy. That's what I take issue with, since it isn't really relevant to the point I was trying to make. Do I expect the language to become fixed? No, but I do expect it to settle down to something manageable at some point. But that takes exploration, which takes time. And in the US anyhow, we're only now deciding to actually explore, question and learn. 

But H5N1 is still Influenza, which isn't new. Nor does what emerges from the box have to remain static once its out. When we talk about gender identity, it is quite an old topic (many cultures do have some language that dates back far enough to demonstrate this). Western culture being forced to acknowledge it? That's a new thing. Previously, it was just erased as mental illness if acknowledged at all. Hell, we're still seeing society defend reparative therapy in the last few months for trans people. 
And again, you take what was meant to be colorful language, and are focusing on the more literal details of the analogy. That's what I take issue with, since it isn't really relevant to the point I was trying to make. Do I expect the language to become fixed? No, but I do expect it to settle down to something manageable at some point. But that takes exploration, which takes time. And in the US anyhow, we're only now deciding to actually explore, question and learn. 

It was meant to be colorful language. Again, it's kinda a weird pick to nit. Even if I said yes, I could also say we're still finding them. If we were to go by the original story, the box was empty of everything but hope once the evils were unleashed. But it doesn't mean Pandora was able to catalogue them all as they came screaming out, or encountered them all during her lifetime even. The gender box has been opened for quite a while, it's just more recently that western european culture has been willing to examine what came out.
 
Except, you can run into this in many situations. Replace terminology with other words, like policy, and you just described a lot of groups (very few groups are homogenous, even if they are "single issue" groups). Yes, it is a controversy in some trans circles (apparently not the ones I'm involved in, we must hang out with different people), but that's okay, and allowed. And yes, on some issues you can take sides and offend the other side (i.e. abortion) and not really have any way around it. When it does happen, it sucks, but I point to OldHack's approach as the best standard approach to work with. Deal with the individual, don't worry so much about how unified the group is (or isn't). 
(I meant to post this yesterday, ugh)

But H5N1 is still Influenza, which isn't new. Nor does what emerges from the box have to remain static once its out. When we talk about gender identity, it is quite an old topic (many cultures do have some language that dates back far enough to demonstrate this). Western culture being forced to acknowledge it? That's a new thing. Previously, it was just erased as mental illness if acknowledged at all. Hell, we're still seeing society defend reparative therapy in the last few months for trans people. 
And again, you take what was meant to be colorful language, and are focusing on the more literal details of the analogy. That's what I take issue with, since it isn't really relevant to the point I was trying to make. Do I expect the language to become fixed? No, but I do expect it to settle down to something manageable at some point. But that takes exploration, which takes time. And in the US anyhow, we're only now deciding to actually explore, question and learn. 

It was meant to be colorful language. Again, it's kinda a weird pick to nit. Even if I said yes, I could also say we're still finding them. If we were to go by the original story, the box was empty of everything but hope once the evils were unleashed. But it doesn't mean Pandora was able to catalogue them all as they came screaming out, or encountered them all during her lifetime even. The gender box has been opened for quite a while, it's just more recently that western european culture has been willing to examine what came out.
 
Except, you can run into this in many situations. Replace terminology with other words, like policy, and you just described a lot of groups (very few groups are homogenous, even if they are "single issue" groups). Yes, it is a controversy in some trans circles (apparently not the ones I'm involved in, we must hang out with different people), but that's okay, and allowed. And yes, on some issues you can take sides and offend the other side (i.e. abortion) and not really have any way around it. When it does happen, it sucks, but I point to OldHack's approach as the best standard approach to work with. Deal with the individual, don't worry so much about how unified the group is (or isn't). 
(I meant to post this yesterday, ugh)

Honestly, this is the ideal, IMO. It's going to take a while to sort out all the pieces that came flying out of Pandora's Box of Gender and for language to settle down on something we agree on.
 
Consider it from the other perspective for the moment (and also consider which parts of the group you are interacting with as well, no group is a monolith). If you are having problems just getting folks to recognize your identity and how you see yourself, and that's a constant day-in/day-out issue, your nerves are going to be somewhat raw. You don't have to fish for reasons when people keep giving them to you as if they are some sort of housewarming gift.

Honestly, this is the ideal, IMO. It's going to take a while to sort out all the pieces that came flying out of Pandora's Box of Gender and for language to settle down on something we agree on.
 
Consider it from the other perspective for the moment (and also consider which parts of the group you are interacting with as well, no group is a monolith). If you are having problems just getting folks to recognize your identity and how you see yourself, and that's a constant day-in/day-out issue, your nerves are going to be somewhat raw. You don't have to fish for reasons when people keep giving them to you as if they are some sort of housewarming gift.

I have elected to simplify. I choose to refer to each individual as they prefer and to otherwise avoid employing offensive terms as I am best able. That is the best I can do; if this stance makes me enemies, I regret that but I do not know a better place to work from.

Yup, a bridge towards the meat of the oncoming conversation. About the only thing bugging me is the lines for the hip in panel 2 (can't unsee it!).
As an aside: I go dark for so long, the forum itself changes.