Yes, that is a Bloodborne reference in panel 4.
I really appreciated the nuanced discussion in the comments section last week re: Jekyll outing Jasper to Ito. In general, it seemed like people were engaging with the situation through the lens of the historical setting, with the rough consensus of: "It's not perfect allyship, but it makes sense in the context of Jekyll's arc and the historical context in which this story takes place." There's still room to explore some adjustment to the text, but to be honest I'm just relieved the response wasn't, "Jekyll is a horrible person and you're a horrible person for writing him."
There's also some interesting conversations to be had within that space, such as, "What responsibility do we have to set a good example for a cis audience?" Which feels like it deserves a whole video essay of its own, not just a paragraph in a blog post I'm frantically writing before getting back to chores. But I do think there's a lot of ways to attack this topic, from "Portrayals of marginalized groups in media affect how people see those groups in real life" to "It's not trans' people's job to write for a cis audience" all the way to--okay, inevitably any time I think about this sort of thing I end up in a toxic place like, "Wow. YOU'RE playing the trans card? You're not trans enough to play the trans card." I'm sure I'm not the only one with a tiny transmedicalist gatekeeper living in my head, but discussions like this are very useful in getting me out of that space.