I don't see them as snynonyms though.  Not presenting one gender but questioning would make (as I understand it!) make you both not cis and not trans.  

I think it's a useful term - there's a lot of overlap with "not trans" and "not trans" is probably clearer in those situations, but it's not the same thing.  

Meanwhile, Marvel sales (in general) have been slumping.

They've been slumping, it seems, since sjw editors have been hired whom in turn hired sjw writers/artists, often folks with either no previous acumen in comics, or at the least, no personal interest in comis as - shall we say - a 'first choice career'. Or even a desired third choice career.

Hi there, icv2.com/articles/news/view/37152/marvels-david-gabriel-2016-market-shift David Gabriel.

Maybe, David, if you and your fellow higher-ups had editors/associate-editors who loved progression mixed with improving and advancing a medium, vs. hiring writers from outside-media only interested in writing material which is a thinly-veiled screed against 'everything which has come before' in the comics medium, people whom 'have some issues' with people outside their own demographic in general ( hello, Gabby Rivera) who don't write an actual tale vs whoring out characters to basically be hand-puppets to act out a tumblr-fan-fic passion play , Marvel would not be on the back-foot RE failing sales.

As opposed to DC, whom seem to have done the 'diversity' thing properly, thus enjoying many Marvel readers jumping ship to DC.

Since DC seems (these days) understands that 'diversity' does not mean barely-disguised division.

Which has been the case, before comics,

in films.

and TV.

and novels.

and radio programs.

and education.

which is why I post this here, rather than elsewhere.

And as many bloggers and youtubers have said for months, directly to Marvel,

"How them sales doin'?'

apparently, BADLY.

I'll bet if Erica Henderson was replaced with a Progressive Female Artist whom appreciated ALL female types, giving focus on the non-hollywood alternative physiques yet still accepting that 'alternative' does not merely mean the sjw artist merely drawing HERSELF, the way anglo-cis-centric comics in the 60's only portrayed white guys reflecting themselves (thus Erica Henderson is more than a wee bit hypocritical re the faux-progression thing), and other 'creators' like her, then sales would have been enough where Mr. Gabriel never would have made his half-hearted/half-arsed 'almost-apology, but not quite'.

I remember that first essay of his being reported, and was really struggling to find something to be offended about myself. He was asked by his own employer for the piece and then fired for his opinion out of some perceived outrage that Google might receive. It's disheartening to see a company kowtow to any perceived bad media coverage, and not stand up for employees when they have done nothing wrong. The divisive way that media has used bias and politics to split people on almost every subject, has given way to employers wanting silent employees, even to the point of silencing off the clock internet usage just in case someone gets mad at someone's opinion. And in this case Google literally threw the man to the wolves and watched him get chewed up, so they wouldn't have to take some responsibility.

I'll have to watch the video at home RR, I have no speakers at work. But thanks for sharing it. I'll probably have more to say once I can watch it.

It's all because someone HAS to be responsible for it, and since said madman is dead, the hotel and concert promoters are logical targets...

...oh, and they have money, which will make it all better for the folks who somehow got through it alive. Nothing helps one overcome surviving a near-death experience like an infusion of cash into one's bank account.

No offense to our esteemend Slam Bradley, Esq., but lawyers who take on cases like this are ghouls and vampires feeding on others' misery.

It is ironic that the internet bile received by Jordan Peterson is making his point far better than any argument he could make. Ironic, but not surprising because in this supposedly enlightened and democratic 2.0 society, anyone who disagrees with us is a Nazi. 

No joke, Peterson is being called a Nazi. Because he is against the idea of criminalizing insensitivity in speech.

He's not saying we should all insult each other, nor does he defend incivility; he views it as a dangerous slope to have the government dictate what we are allowed to say, what ideas we are allowed to discuss, and how we are allowed to discuss them. Because he thinks that discussing controversial issues is not a hate crime, and that it is not the state's place to impose the words we are free to use. (Orwell saw it coming, unfortunately).

That rather mild offense somehow makes him the same as people who would round up an entire ethnic group, murder them wholesale and burn their bodies in death factories. Yes, they are clearly the same.

Words have meaning, and there is such a thing as objective reality. Words, their meaning and objective reality should definitely be linked. "Nazi" is not synonymous with "person I disagree with". "Hate crime" is not synonymous with "holding an opinion that you do not hold". 

Something I read on a Vancouver news website this morning: there's this young fellow who rescued a young muslim girl who was being verbally abused and then hit by a racist homeless dude. The culprit was arrested (the police knew him well) and he was charged with assault and other assorted charges. But... someone wants to add "sexual assault" to the list. Hey, no problem right? the guy's scum anyway so what's one more charge, especially since it will probably not stick. But it is important. This is not sexual assault. To pretend otherwise diminishes all the other instances of actual sexual assault, because if we use the term at random it will quickly become meaningless.

Like "Nazi". And if there's a word that should never be taken lightly, it's that one. Its objective reality is way too worrisome.

My point was more along the lines of disliking ambulance chasers and opportunists who will sue anyone or anything even remotely connected with a tragedy in order to squeeze a few dollars out of the situation for their client, of which they will gladly take their 40% cut.

There is, sadly, little room for nuance anywhere in life.

Nuance requires understanding issues at a deeper level than can be gleaned from a soundbite or Tweet, and it demands understanding that some issues are more complex than being simply binary "black/white" matters.

As well, society moves more toward finding "win-lose" resolutions on debates rather than "win-win", or at least "ties", driven primarily, I believe, by the overwhelming influence sports has in our lives (hell, even the NHL did away with ties because people demanded a winner in every contest). There is no room for someone else's opinion, as only my side's matters and yours is automatically wrong or invalid.