The joke is taking two extremes, throwing them against each other, and then making extreme claims about the two. Adding transgender people, genderqueer people, bisexual people, asexual people, and every other group you can think of would not only ruin the joke, it wouldn't fit in the format of a Dinosaur Comics cartoon.
Oh, well, as long as there's a reason to ignore them. Carry on. >.>
That said, irreverence is not the same as (heh) ignorance, or ignoring for that matter. I mean, it takes what, thirty seconds to realize that it's perfectly possible for homosexual couples to breed (yes, just the two of them, no, no proxies or external insemination or surrogates or anything of the sort)? And that's thirty seconds for someone who's tired, hearing it second-hand, and distracted by cleaning up the back yard.
I mean, sure, all jokes require some filtering of perception, but filtering perception along the lines of "Oh, ha ha, obviously a trans man and a cis man who have a kid are really a heterosexual couple because trans men aren't really men, whoooo biology defines gender" is just... not a filter I wanna get into using. Even for a laugh. Maybe especially for a laugh.
I viewed it as intending to do that, yeah, but it does kind of rely on the idea that no man can have a womb and no woman can produce sperm, so, yanno...
It doesn't say "problems all heterosexual couples are responsible for", it says "problems that can only be blamed on heterosexual couples".
(ETA: and I would want to actually think about it before I defined an asexual couple as a heterosexual couple, since my understanding is that asexuality is used to indicate one isn't hetero- homo- or bisexual, but that is my own baggage and I will check a dictionary. :) )
I mean, it takes what, thirty seconds to realize that it's perfectly possible for homosexual couples to breed?
I'm aware of that; Mr. North, being a pretty progressive guy, is also probably aware of that; same with a good chunk of his audience. But again, it's a joke. It's like taking offense to a roses are red poem because not all roses are red.
And yes, I know comedy is the spearhead of truth and all that, but usually the joke comes first, along with filing the edges off the facts so the joke flows better. If every joke had to take into account every single contingency of every party involved, they wouldn't be funny. In this case, the whole premise of the joke being a standardized fallacy is part of the joke.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-29 06:50 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-29 08:45 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-29 08:49 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-29 09:00 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-29 09:03 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-29 09:24 pm (UTC)Or just enough gay sex.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-29 09:35 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-29 10:41 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-29 10:42 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-30 09:07 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-04-01 09:38 pm (UTC)Oh, well, as long as there's a reason to ignore them. Carry on. >.>
That said, irreverence is not the same as (heh) ignorance, or ignoring for that matter. I mean, it takes what, thirty seconds to realize that it's perfectly possible for homosexual couples to breed (yes, just the two of them, no, no proxies or external insemination or surrogates or anything of the sort)? And that's thirty seconds for someone who's tired, hearing it second-hand, and distracted by cleaning up the back yard.
I mean, sure, all jokes require some filtering of perception, but filtering perception along the lines of "Oh, ha ha, obviously a trans man and a cis man who have a kid are really a heterosexual couple because trans men aren't really men, whoooo biology defines gender" is just... not a filter I wanna get into using.
Even for a laugh.
Maybe especially for a laugh.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-04-01 09:41 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-04-01 09:55 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-04-01 10:12 pm (UTC)(ETA: and I would want to actually think about it before I defined an asexual couple as a heterosexual couple, since my understanding is that asexuality is used to indicate one isn't hetero- homo- or bisexual, but that is my own baggage and I will check a dictionary. :) )
(no subject)
Date: 2011-04-01 10:18 pm (UTC)I'm aware of that; Mr. North, being a pretty progressive guy, is also probably aware of that; same with a good chunk of his audience. But again, it's a joke. It's like taking offense to a roses are red poem because not all roses are red.
And yes, I know comedy is the spearhead of truth and all that, but usually the joke comes first, along with filing the edges off the facts so the joke flows better. If every joke had to take into account every single contingency of every party involved, they wouldn't be funny. In this case, the whole premise of the joke being a standardized fallacy is part of the joke.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-04-01 10:24 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-04-01 10:39 pm (UTC)