It makes it look like there’s something funny or wrong with a woman’s face looking male to a lesser or bigger extent.
Ridiculing a cis person for looking a bit like the opposite sex causes people to ridicule trans people as well.
I don’t like the joke because it makes my life more dangerous. It steers the society in a direction that increases my risk to be beaten up or murdered.
And yes, here the joke is about unambiguity regarding what the gender of the person is. If there was a joke where the funny part is that someone is wearing a wig (here the wig is a tool for reaching the “funny” look, not the funny thing as for itself), then it would indeed endanger the well-being of every person wearing a wig. This joke here does nothing to ridicule the concept of wearing a wig. But it does ridicule the concept of a woman looking male. It’s saying “this person looks trans. How funny!”
I look trans. Why is it funny to you that I look trans?
I don’t think anyone’s implying that miller looks feminine or that Zacharia looks masculine. To me, it says that this administration is running out of blond options and miller might have to spew his own propaganda soon. And, for what it’s worth, I’m a cis woman with masculine features, so unfortunately I do have skin in this game.
It makes it look like there’s something funny or wrong
You’re automatically assuming funny indicates wrong. No one here who laughed at that thought of it this way. The joke here actually is that this would be unexpected. Often this is the crux of jokes. It seems like you’ve internalized it hard that laughing = derision.
Why is it funny to you that I look trans?
It isn’t, I don’t know you or feel that way about any trans person. I see no reason to think anyone else thought that was the joke either. To continue my analogy, I see no difference between your reaction and “Why is it funny to you that some people have to wear a wig?” Other than because a lot of transphobes exist, it’s possible for a joke involving the concept of gender looks could be based on derision. Does not mean it is though.
For an example of trans derision masked as comedy, see Dave Chappelle. He went from my favorite comedy legend to a bigot within the span of a few “jokes”. He actually did what you’re claiming happened here. They weren’t even jokes, and what you’re claiming this was wouldn’t be a joke either. Since a joke requires a setup and the unexpected twist. Both present here, neither present in Chapelle’s “bits” on the matter.
Well, either wrong or being the butt of the joke. Yes. Punching down is considered wrong. So yes, a funny thing where you punch down is a wrong thing.
because a lot of transphobes exist, it’s possible for a joke involving the concept of gender looks could be based on derision. Does not mean it is though.
Yes. And because of this, a joke involving the concept of gender gets interpreted as being based on derision by a certain part of the audience. And that means they will interpret it as “trans people are to be ridiculed”. It does not matter what the sender of a message meant to say with it. What matters is how it gets interpreted by the audience. The joke was not meant to create anti-trans sentiment. It does create anti-trans sentiment in some of its viewers.
Since a sizable part of the viewers will interpret derision in it, and therefore increase their chance of attacking me, it is a thoughtless joke. Even if something whole different was meant with it.
Regarding Chappelle… I don’t think I’m going to search for videos of a person making jokes that would feel bad for me to watch, sorry. You’ll have to live with me not checking his videos out. But if he’s an ass, may he please rot.
I never in any way implied you have to watch Dave Chappelle videos. “See” could also mean be aware of or read about. I assumed given the wild popularity of the guy you already were aware and probably already saw at least parts of the segments in question.
You just straight up made up intentions for a joke and justified it very flimsily. You ignored the context and explanations given by others which made sense, while clinging to your vague assumption that this was about someone’s looks in a fake photo, which actually does not hold up to any scrutiny at all.
If you go around inventing bad intent you’re going to be upset and you don’t get to blame other people for that. You’re actively doing it, not someone making a harmless joke. You claim this joke harms trans people but at no point did you near giving a reason why that’s true, you just claimed it would because people can have feelings they cannot explain. If in the fediverse, a highly leftist and trans-friendly place, dozens of people approved and you’re the singular outlier, maybe consider that you’re wrong.
You just straight up made up intentions for a joke
If you go around inventing bad intent
Okay, here I can see we have a miscommunication. I have not communicated well enough if you have ended up thinking I find the intent of the joke bad. I see nothing wrong in its intent.
The only problem I have is with the result: With what the joke actually ends up being beside its intended meaning. As I said in that first comment of mine:
beside its main point
So, don’t worry, we probably think much more alike than you assume. The only problems about the joke are in what it accidentally conveys, because of thoughtlessness of the person who made it. I’m not blaming its intent. The intent is, actually, pure gold.
I assumed given the wild popularity of the guy you already were aware and probably already saw at least parts of the segments in question.
We are probably from different regions. This was the first time I ever heard of the comedian’s name. Over here, for example Ismo Leikola and Sami Hedberg wildly popular comedians. I’ve got the same reason to assume you know one of them as you do that I know Chappelle. Different comedians have gigs in different places. You really shouldn’t assume a random person on the Internet knows someone merely because that person is popular in your social bubble.
You’ve even got a problem with me assuming you knew one of the biggest comedians of all time? Wow. I don’t get the sense that the names you mentioned are internationally famous whereas Dave Chappelle certainly is. Not to mention that a lot of people stopped liking him specifically due to transphobia. Which I was trying to use as an example to show that not only do I agree that such “jokes” exist, but also that I condemn them.
You still never gave a single reason that this joke would’ve hurt anyone, intentionally or not. It doesn’t. It does not make a comment on how anyone looks, and you’re just an unpleasant person, unfortunately.
You’ve even got a problem with me assuming you knew one of the biggest comedians of all time?
I don’t think he can be one of the biggest comedians of all time if he is not known except in some specific region. I would know about him if he was as famous as it seems in your social bubble.
You still never gave a single reason that this joke would’ve hurt anyone, intentionally or not.
For accidentally omitting this, I am of course very sorry. So, here comes a reason:
The joke makes it look like there’s something funny or wrong with a woman’s face looking male to a lesser or bigger extent.
How does this image not convey an anti-trans message beside its main point?
drag ≠ trans
I interpreted it as they are the same person. Not that its bad to become a woman.
How does it? If the target of a joke is bad, then any concept present in the joke is also seen as bad? Is this joke also anti-wigs?
It makes it look like there’s something funny or wrong with a woman’s face looking male to a lesser or bigger extent.
Ridiculing a cis person for looking a bit like the opposite sex causes people to ridicule trans people as well.
I don’t like the joke because it makes my life more dangerous. It steers the society in a direction that increases my risk to be beaten up or murdered.
And yes, here the joke is about unambiguity regarding what the gender of the person is. If there was a joke where the funny part is that someone is wearing a wig (here the wig is a tool for reaching the “funny” look, not the funny thing as for itself), then it would indeed endanger the well-being of every person wearing a wig. This joke here does nothing to ridicule the concept of wearing a wig. But it does ridicule the concept of a woman looking male. It’s saying “this person looks trans. How funny!”
I look trans. Why is it funny to you that I look trans?
I don’t think anyone’s implying that miller looks feminine or that Zacharia looks masculine. To me, it says that this administration is running out of blond options and miller might have to spew his own propaganda soon. And, for what it’s worth, I’m a cis woman with masculine features, so unfortunately I do have skin in this game.
You’re automatically assuming funny indicates wrong. No one here who laughed at that thought of it this way. The joke here actually is that this would be unexpected. Often this is the crux of jokes. It seems like you’ve internalized it hard that laughing = derision.
It isn’t, I don’t know you or feel that way about any trans person. I see no reason to think anyone else thought that was the joke either. To continue my analogy, I see no difference between your reaction and “Why is it funny to you that some people have to wear a wig?” Other than because a lot of transphobes exist, it’s possible for a joke involving the concept of gender looks could be based on derision. Does not mean it is though.
For an example of trans derision masked as comedy, see Dave Chappelle. He went from my favorite comedy legend to a bigot within the span of a few “jokes”. He actually did what you’re claiming happened here. They weren’t even jokes, and what you’re claiming this was wouldn’t be a joke either. Since a joke requires a setup and the unexpected twist. Both present here, neither present in Chapelle’s “bits” on the matter.
Well, either wrong or being the butt of the joke. Yes. Punching down is considered wrong. So yes, a funny thing where you punch down is a wrong thing.
Yes. And because of this, a joke involving the concept of gender gets interpreted as being based on derision by a certain part of the audience. And that means they will interpret it as “trans people are to be ridiculed”. It does not matter what the sender of a message meant to say with it. What matters is how it gets interpreted by the audience. The joke was not meant to create anti-trans sentiment. It does create anti-trans sentiment in some of its viewers.
Since a sizable part of the viewers will interpret derision in it, and therefore increase their chance of attacking me, it is a thoughtless joke. Even if something whole different was meant with it.
Regarding Chappelle… I don’t think I’m going to search for videos of a person making jokes that would feel bad for me to watch, sorry. You’ll have to live with me not checking his videos out. But if he’s an ass, may he please rot.
I never in any way implied you have to watch Dave Chappelle videos. “See” could also mean be aware of or read about. I assumed given the wild popularity of the guy you already were aware and probably already saw at least parts of the segments in question.
You just straight up made up intentions for a joke and justified it very flimsily. You ignored the context and explanations given by others which made sense, while clinging to your vague assumption that this was about someone’s looks in a fake photo, which actually does not hold up to any scrutiny at all.
If you go around inventing bad intent you’re going to be upset and you don’t get to blame other people for that. You’re actively doing it, not someone making a harmless joke. You claim this joke harms trans people but at no point did you near giving a reason why that’s true, you just claimed it would because people can have feelings they cannot explain. If in the fediverse, a highly leftist and trans-friendly place, dozens of people approved and you’re the singular outlier, maybe consider that you’re wrong.
Okay, here I can see we have a miscommunication. I have not communicated well enough if you have ended up thinking I find the intent of the joke bad. I see nothing wrong in its intent.
The only problem I have is with the result: With what the joke actually ends up being beside its intended meaning. As I said in that first comment of mine:
So, don’t worry, we probably think much more alike than you assume. The only problems about the joke are in what it accidentally conveys, because of thoughtlessness of the person who made it. I’m not blaming its intent. The intent is, actually, pure gold.
We are probably from different regions. This was the first time I ever heard of the comedian’s name. Over here, for example Ismo Leikola and Sami Hedberg wildly popular comedians. I’ve got the same reason to assume you know one of them as you do that I know Chappelle. Different comedians have gigs in different places. You really shouldn’t assume a random person on the Internet knows someone merely because that person is popular in your social bubble.
You’ve even got a problem with me assuming you knew one of the biggest comedians of all time? Wow. I don’t get the sense that the names you mentioned are internationally famous whereas Dave Chappelle certainly is. Not to mention that a lot of people stopped liking him specifically due to transphobia. Which I was trying to use as an example to show that not only do I agree that such “jokes” exist, but also that I condemn them.
You still never gave a single reason that this joke would’ve hurt anyone, intentionally or not. It doesn’t. It does not make a comment on how anyone looks, and you’re just an unpleasant person, unfortunately.
I don’t think he can be one of the biggest comedians of all time if he is not known except in some specific region. I would know about him if he was as famous as it seems in your social bubble.
For accidentally omitting this, I am of course very sorry. So, here comes a reason:
The joke makes it look like there’s something funny or wrong with a woman’s face looking male to a lesser or bigger extent.