That implies he feels trans people are beneath him.

That wasn’t my point. And you know that wasn’t my point. Your disingenuous bullshit doesn’t really deserve a proper response. But I’m gonna give you one anyway.

(Most of the following text is adapted from other sources. I claim no ownership over the original sources or this adaptation thereof. All rights wronged. Be sure to tip your waitress. Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.)

The ultimate question of comedy is this: “Who do you want to include?” Or perhaps, better said: “Who do you not want to include?” The wording of those questions comes from W. Kamau Bell in regards to discussions about comedy and what someone “can” and “cannot” say on stage. This is not about the First Amendment; someone can say whatever they want and not get tossed in jail for it. This is about the nature of response — and, to a similar extent, the nature of a comedian’s aim.

All comedy turns someone or something into the intended target of a joke — and that the very person telling a joke can also be the target. (Self-depricating humor is a thing, after all. Just look at Louis CK’s material…well, before all the sexual misconduct allegations, anyway.) When a comedian says something they know will be offensive to certain people, they have made a decision about who they want to laugh at the joke and who they want to offend. “Who are you trying to include in your story’s communication? What kind of audience are you truly looking for?” Those are the artist’s questions — and that is where intent and approach to execution matter most.

A joke about rape will send different messages depending on how the joke is told (execution) and who the joke-teller wants to laugh at it (intent). If I were to tell a joke about how rapists feel entitled to women’s bodies, my joke would aim to use rapists as the target of the joke and bring everyone else (including rape victims) into the audience for that joke. But if I were to tell a joke about a man raping a woman, my joke would instead aim to bring rapists into my audience and use rape victims as the target. This leads to an intentionally provocative ethical question about humor: Who would you prefer to have in your dedicated audience, a rapist or a rape victim?

Humor is a social act, a way in which we relate to/interact with others. It is also a way in which we construct identity (i.e., who we are in relation to others). We use humor to form groups and find our individual place in and out of these groups. Joking/humor is one tool with which we assimilate or alienate. But how we use humor is an ethical dilemma: Who do we embrace, who do we shun, how do we do that, and for what reason? (These questions also apply to ideas in general.)

Racist/homophobic/sexist/transphobic “jokes” are bad because they both alienate others and help normalize the noxious ideas behind those jokes. A racist joke, for example, sends a message to the intended audience — the in-group — that racism is acceptable. Such joke-tellers use “I was just joking” as a defense to the out-group (and only them). To the in-group, the idea conveyed is already acceptable. If someone accepts that defense, they are willing to enter an in-group where the idea conveyed by that joke is acceptable. But the joke-teller is never “just joking”.

Humor is complicated and always a matter of interpretation. Some humor (mainly parody and satire) is designed to alienate racism, homophobia, etc. as ideas. But if you can tell that someone is not engaging in complex humor, never accept “I was just joking” as an excuse. Mitch Hedberg was the funniest stand-up comedian in the world while he was alive, and his material was cleaner and less offensive than that of practically all his contemporaries. Humor does not need to punch down or insult others to be funny. Cruelty is only funny to the similarly cruel.

Oh, and one last point: You can find something funny to say on literally any topic, but you must be laughing with the hurting people, not at them. Look at gay comedians talking about homophobia: They describe any number painful experiences, but they find the humor in them, so it lightens the load for everyone. That’s the point of why I mentioned trans people: Cis comedians still get mileage out of mocking trans people — out of laughing at, not with, the hurting people. Nearly every other kind of blatantly bigoted joke is “off-limits” (i.e., bound to be met with disapproval from everyone who isn’t part of the in-group for that joke). But anti-trans jokes still persist because trans people don’t yet have the same cultural acceptance as other minority segments of the population. Life would be more enjoyable for trans people if they didn’t have to worry about their lives becoming a punchline. But I guess giving trans people that personal consideration is too much work for some comedians.