Author: alexander.mcd@gmail.com

I was asked recently about what a PROUTist solution for Israel-Palestine might look like (for those not familiar with PROUT it is a theory of how to create ideal societies based on communitarian, and spiritual principles). Now I thought about this and realised I didn’t know the answer, so I did some study and some thinking and came up with some key points that I think would at least point us in the right direction to healing the conflict in Israel-Palestine.

Enlightened Leadership

In Prout these are called Sadvipras – we need great leaders who can unite the country in a visionary positive way, not in a aggressive conflicting way. Great leaders like this are hard to come by, and always come out of a deep inner journey – people who find their inner connection with the great, and are able to bring that connection to life in the world.

1. For those wishing to really make a difference the first step is to become a sadvipra yourself, to develop the leadership qualities necessary to truly bring others towards a more positive existence. To expand your consciousness through the layers of the mind – beyond love and devotion to unity and connection – to be part of that divine ocean of love and joy. This can be achieved in many ways. Some manage to achieve it through Ananda Marga Yoga which has some links to Prout theory, but some achieve it through other pathways as well. If you want to be part of the solution then this is the first step.

2. Teach others to become sadvipras – it is unlikely that one enlightened person alone is enough to transform the society. We need leaders of many kinds in many areas, and we need the many to follow and to join in that spirit of connection. So it will be necessary to teach deep spirituality to others. There remains a question of in what form should this be done that I will address later on.

3. We may need sadvipras in politics in places of political power to bring the control away from selfish, and aggressive people to people who can lead us in the right direction. This may also require a new political party that is based on connection and a positive vision

Analyse the Social Cycle

In Prout society is seen as having four phases – based on the power structures. We have the community power, the warrior power, the intellectual power and the financial power, and we cycle through these power structures. In israel-palestine there is a lot of influence of financial power the same as the whole world over under capitalism, but there is also a very strong element of warrior power, and warrior power includes not just wars and battles, but also strong dictatorial leaders, and controlling governments. On the positive it often also includes strong visionary and charismatic leaders. On the israeli side many people live their ordinary lives focused on the financial and not the military, but still you can see the movement away from free enterprise to control. On the palestinian side it is clear that many are turning to military, combative answers to their problems, and there is a strong tendency towards a sense for the need of courage and standing up for one’s rights. I think the nation is in the early stages of warrior power.

1. In the early stages of warrior power there is a need for warrior answers – it is not yet the time to move the cycle on to something new, but the time to unite people under a common banner to march together towards a greater vision.

Spiritual Education

1. As we discussed above there is a need for spiritual education – this is not just for the great individual leaders that we need, but also to open the hearts of the people so they are ready to receive peaceful, connection solutions, and to heal the wounds that have developed over so many years. Thus it is not only necessary to show deep spiritual answers, but also to package them in such a way that people are ready to receive them, and that they speak to the people’s current religious and ideological positions.
2. In Palestine there may be room for a military-like community service movement – for those who wish to stand up and do something for the problem – let them have an alternative to joining the violent struggle, and let them join the non-violent struggle. Something like what in Ananda Marga is called VSS – Volunteer Social Security One will have to be careful that there is no sense that it is challenging islam, or asking people to change their religion I think that will only create more conflict. So it should reference islam, or at least be compatible with it.
3. Among the jewish israelis there is a lot of room for a softer approach there is an interest in alternative approaches to spirituality such as meditation and yoga, and there are many non religious people who would prefer a new approach. It would be good to still make the approach compatible with Jewish teachings so that it can attract support across the society and not just with those who have turned away from the traditional practices.

Community Development

In order for people to live happily together their basic needs must be met, and so it is essential to do community development (and sometimes relief work) to look after people and develop communities where people can live happily. Happy people are peaceful people, when people’s basic needs are met they will not easily join a fight or start a war, they will prefer to simply live their lives and find their own ways to contribute to the community around them.

1. Obviously in Palestinian communities there is a lot of need for developing the true wealth of the community, and much of the standard community development approaches used in the third world can be applied.
2. In the Jewish communities we generally see a lot more wealth, but still people live in stress and their is a lack of true community so community development is still necessary.
3. In this article I am not talking very much about the other communities in israel – the Druze, the Christians etc. These are less important to the issue because they are not very involved in the conflict, but they are very important to a united society – and community development should be applied with them, and their help should also be used to support others in the peace process.

A Uniting Vision

A uniting vision for a future society that we can move towards must be developed. Some people have made some beginning steps in this direction, but in conflict resolution it is known that a true uniting vision requires enthusiastic agreement – not just “that would be good enough” but “that would be wonderful”, and so a deeper exploration of this topic needs to be done, and a greater vision needs to be created.

1. Interview people from different sides of the issue and understand their needs. Understand not just what they think should happen, but what are the key practical and emotional needs they have in being able to support a direction. This must include religious and non-religious from all the main religions and communities. Do they need a name that they can believe in? Do they need freedom and autonomy? Safety? Respect? What is it that underlies the conflict – we must ask what people need and often we must ask “why?” as this is what makes the underlying needs visible.
2. Develop a vision of how we could meet ALL those needs – I do mean ALL of them – and it is possible. Just be creative, and dig deep to understand and we will be able to find a solution. We must then take this solution back to the people and check that they like it. When we have a vision that people like then we can move on to create a movement – I do not know the details of what our vision would be, but I can see that it would contain some key elements – indepent regions that are also cooperating for the wellbeing of all, possibly a new name and identity that is more uniting, probably a recognition of all the religions, and a guarantee of religious freedom,
3. Create a social movement based on that uniting vision. This may become a political party, or a movement that is less directly involved in political elections, but still engages in the future of the country. This may have slightly different forms among the different communities, but at heart it is one vision.

Building Connection

In any community work the first step is always to build connection, and that can be done in various ways

1. relief work can help us to make connection with the people in need
2. cultural celebrations can build connection among the people and it can be a very good thing to celebrate the traditional cultures, and to develop cross cultural celebrations – are there ways that we can dance the traditional dances of the different cultures together?
3. Other artistic creations that touch people can open up people’s hearts and spirits and create interest and openness for more movement in this direction.
4. There are already some good actions being taken in this field and one can collaborate and support the existing good work.

How would I put all of these elements together into a practical project that would heal and transform Israel-Palestine? Here are my thoughts

Peace Warriors Club

A movement of people who would stand up for peace and fight for a better tomorrow. I would base it on teaching Aikido and the other inner martial arts that promote peace and spiritual awakening, and incorporate meditation techniques. This should be an approach that is not in any way in conflict with the existing religious traditions, and therefore can be supported by all sides, and can attract the warrior energy that is now going towards conflict and violence into non-violent society building actions.

Engage this club not just in learning peaceful martial arts, but in applying them in practice to make a difference – engage in such actions as

1. Relief work
2. Interviews to create a common vision
3. Creating Cultural Celebrations
4. Doing performances and demonstrations that inspire people on the new path of peace
5. Engage in appropriate community development activities depending on the location.

Starting a movement like this takes something more than just talking about it, it requires touching people and inspiring people. I am in favour of doing this through art. What I could imagine doing is a movement theatre production that shows in a stylised form the conflicts that the nation has gone through, and is going through and how we could imagine it being resolved. I would highlight aikido non-violent techniques, and related dance forms such as contact improv, and show the concept of how we could step beyond our current mess into something more beautiful, and hopefully touch people enough to be able to start something.

In Conclusion

I have a plan for a transformation of Israel-Palestine – what do you think? does it make sense to you? What do you think I am missing?

Welcome to part two of our analysis of what Dave Chappelle gets wrong about trans people in comedy. We’re delving into the key points raised in the original article to understand its critiques from multiple perspectives.  It will be quite long.  Feel free to skip to the next article and video if you want just the conclusions.

First, a significant portion of the critique focuses on a specific joke Chappelle tells. The article claims that Chappelle blatantly misgenders Daphne and follows with, “As hard as it is to hear a joke like that, I’m telling you right now Daphne would have loved that joke.” Let’s look at the actual transcript for clarity:

Chappelle says: (Context—we’re talking about Daphne, who killed herself.) “I was very angry at her… She always said she identified as a woman. One day, she goes up to the roof of her building, jumps off, and kills herself. Clearly, only a man would do some gangster [__] like that. Hear me out—as hard as it is to hear a joke like that, I’m telling you right now Daphne would have loved that joke. That’s why she was my friend.”

What exactly is the issue with this joke?

First, it’s undeniably shocking. Chappelle’s style often uses shock value to make a point—that’s a defining aspect of his comedy. Here, however, the punchline involves misgendering Daphne in the context of her suicide. Supporters of transgender rights highlight that intentionally using the wrong pronouns is disrespectful because it disregards someone’s gender identity and requested pronouns.

The joke implies that Daphne’s action—jumping off a building—was masculine behavior. This frames a broader question Chappelle is exploring: Is there an inherent difference between trans and cisgender individuals? His comedy, in part, invites the audience to consider whether such distinctions are meaningful. He doesn’t offer a definitive answer, but he uses provocative humor to prompt reflection.

Now, is it acceptable to raise these questions using humor that involves misgendering? In everyday conversation, respecting pronouns is fundamental. However, comedy and art often challenge norms to make important points. Could Chappelle have made his point differently? Possibly. But removing the provocative nature of the joke might dilute its impact.

Next, the article states, “Trans people have expressed outrage at both Chappelle and Netflix for amplifying overtly transphobic and anti-scientific views about gender and trans identity.”

What do “anti-scientific” views mean in this context? Typically, it refers to denying the fluidity of gender identity and asserting that gender is solely determined by biological sex. Trans rights advocates argue that scientific understanding recognizes gender as more complex, involving both biology and personal identity.

The article does not present specific examples of transphobic rhetoric from Chappelle—it simply notes the outrage. While Netflix’s co-CEO, Ted Sarandos, initially defended the special by saying it wouldn’t cause real-world harm, he later retracted the statement. The critique conflates Sarandos’s position with Chappelle’s views, which isn’t entirely fair. Chappelle’s issues with Netflix are well-documented, so using Sarandos’s comments to criticize Chappelle’s intent is problematic.

The article further claims, “There’s no getting around the reality that transphobic rhetoric like Chappelle’s absolutely contributes to real-life harm.” However, there are logical gaps here:

1. The assumption that Chappelle’s rhetoric is transphobic remains unsubstantiated. The jokes may be offensive to some, but intent matters in determining whether something is phobic.
2. The assertion that his jokes cause harm lacks supporting evidence or a clear causal link.

Finally, the claim that Chappelle views trans people’s pain as an acceptable trade-off is based on inference rather than direct statements from him. The analysis here draws conclusions about Chappelle’s beliefs without adequate proof.

A deeper, more compassionate approach to this debate would benefit from clear definitions of harmful rhetoric, examples of respectful alternatives, and a dialogue about balancing free expression with sensitivity. Asking hard questions requires space to express ideas imperfectly before refining them into respectful discourse. While the need for kindness and respect is vital, the article falls short of clarifying exactly what rhetoric must change and why. Constructive engagement, rather than vague outrage, would better serve the discussion.

Here, the deeper level of listening—compassionate listening—involves trying to identify what the underlying needs are. If we can start discussing what these needs truly represent, we may find pathways to resolve the conflicts at hand.

I think, in the end, we’ll need to compile a list of all the questions and needs that we do understand, as well as those we do not, along with any unanswered questions that require further exploration. Perhaps someone will be able to help answer these questions.

Romano claims that Chappelle wants to turn classes of oppression into a zero-sum game. The concept of a zero-sum game is one in which one side gains only at the expense of another’s loss. In this context, it’s argued that Chappelle pits Black rights against trans rights, suggesting that supporting trans rights comes at the cost of Black rights, with an apparent implication that trans rights are gaining while Black rights are in decline.

However, the argument that identity works this way is flawed. Identity is not a competition; individual rights are not diminished by recognizing the rights of others. Even if one could question some of Chappelle’s framing, his actual position is more nuanced. He has stated, and I paraphrase, that he does not oppose trans people but rather envies their progress. He asks, with curiosity, how the Black community could emulate the gains made by the trans community.

This framing is far from a zero-sum perspective. If anything, it’s an aspiration for collective uplift, not a desire to diminish one group to elevate another.

Romano’s critique further claims that Chappelle’s hypocrisy is evident in his discussions about queer and trans individuals benefiting from white privilege. Hypocrisy implies advocating for a principle while failing to uphold it personally. However, nothing in Chappelle’s discourse suggests that he is guilty of such behavior. This accusation appears more as a rhetorical device to undermine credibility rather than a substantiated logical point.

It is fair to note, and in this case Romano does make a good point –  that Chappelle frequently discusses white privilege in relation to queer and trans individuals while not adequately acknowledging Black queer and trans voices. There is statistical data indicating that trans issues disproportionately affect Black Americans. In this sense, his omission does weaken his analysis, although it does not carry malicious intent.

Romano continues, accusing Chappelle of reducing the equality movement among sexual and gender minorities to “shrill window dressing.” The language here is hyperbolic. Chappelle does question certain aspects of gender politics, particularly their prominence in white progressive spaces, but he does not outright deny the validity of trans rights. His core argument is about maintaining focus on systemic racism affecting Black communities.

The critique of Chappelle’s praise for Daphne Dorman also misses the mark. Romano claims that Chappelle only accepted Dorman on his terms. However, the discussion here hinges on the multiple meanings of the word “accept.” Chappelle’s acceptance was one of human connection—believing in her experience—rather than a philosophical agreement about pronoun usage. This distinction matters, as it reflects differing ways of navigating personal relationships and social identity.

Language and free speech, topics central to “cancel culture,” represent genuine needs for clarity and freedom of expression. The insistence on patience and respect when grappling with complex issues of identity is critical. Reactionary politics are often criticized pejoratively, but by definition, they are responses to cultural shifts rather than visionary frameworks. The use of “reactionary” to describe Chappelle’s material frames his work negatively without exploring its full intent.

True dialogue requires avoiding disrespect, demands, and aggression. These destroy relationships and preclude connection. In addressing societal divides, respecting the importance of every person’s expressed needs—whether or not they are fully understood—remains paramount. The ultimate goal should be reconciliation grounded in love, respect, and deeper understanding.

(Well this writing is really hard work – i am going to leave the rest as more a less a transcript of my video as I don’t have the time or energy to do a better job.  Hope you don’t mind…)

“Chappelle makes it clear that he needs Dorman to exist on his terms, not hers—not as a trans woman with autonomy, but as a trans woman who’s proven she deserves autonomy by way of having a chill, laid-back sense of humor. Furthermore, in repeatedly reducing Dorman’s existence to her body parts and her relationship to them, and the language surrounding them, Chappelle dehumanizes her and dehumanizes other trans people.”

Okay, terrible, bad, bad, bad. But logically, what’s going on here? The first thing is that Chappelle makes it clear that he needs Dorman to exist on his terms, not hers. This is based on the mistake in the word “accept.” He points out that he accepted her explicitly because she didn’t say anything about pronouns that would make him feel like he was about to be in trouble for saying something wrong, implying that he would not accept her as a person if she did say anything about pronouns or make him feel like he was in trouble for saying something wrong. But that is not at all what he says. Chappelle does not make it clear that Dorman needs to exist on his terms, not hers. He makes it clear that he loves her because she connected with him in a way that made him respect her.

“Furthermore, in repeatedly reducing Dorman’s existence to her body parts and her relationship to them, and the language surrounding them, Chappelle dehumanizes her and dehumanizes other trans people.”  Did you actually watch this Closer? Did you actually read the transcript? It doesn’t even make sense. “He reduces her to her body parts”—he barely talks about her body parts. Let’s see what he says.

Now I’ve lost where we are because I was looking for that other thing. By the way, there is one really shocking thing that he says in this. I looked through the transcript and tried to find anything that I thought was in bad taste, and it was his idea for a movie called “Space Jews.” It’s really funny, but it’s disrespectful to Jewish people, not to trans people. If the Jews started complaining, I would say that there was something worth listening to here. But he treats trans people with much more respect.

“Okay, moving on. One of the coolest people I ever met was a transgender woman. This was not a man that I knew who became a woman. This woman was trans when I met her. She lived in San Francisco. Dorman is the name—it’s written “Dwan” here, but I’m sure it’s not. I’m pretty sure it’s Dorman. Anyway, she would be there, a white trans woman, laughing loud and hard at everything I said, especially the trans jokes. Very puzzling, because she was obviously trans. It turns out she dreamed of being a comedian, and I was her hero. It was very moving. We became fast friends. Then, he invited her to do a show with him. He calls up, “Hey, Dey, this is Dave Chappelle. I’m in San Francisco,” and she starts saying a bunch of wild stuff. I was like, “Relax, now. I don’t want any pussy. I’m just calling ’cause I’m doing a show and I need an opening act. I was wondering if you’d open the show.” She was like, “[_] yeah.”

We’re not talking about her body parts. I mean, there was a little comment of pussy, but in the context of “that’s not what I’m looking for, I’m interested in you as a comedian.” He says here, “She was dressed to the nines.” I mean, I’m transphobic and even I was like, “You looked nice.” Not that when he says “I’m transphobic,” what he means is that he feels uncomfortable around trans people, not that he’s against them. Later on, she tries to hug him, and he pushes her away because he’s like, “This is awkward.” Phobic in the sense of a fear, not of anger—fear, an awkwardness. This just doesn’t make him comfortable. Then he talks about the way she heard comedy, how bad it was, and then how she came back and was actually really funny.

There is some comedy that she made about her body parts, but that was because of the audience making comments, and she managed to reduce the tension with a joke about it. He’s not talking about their body parts. There is no reality here; this is just going away from the truth to make something up in order to say that Chappelle did something bad.

Okay, can I be compassionate here? It’s a bit hard. You know, when you’re triggered, it’s hard to be compassionate. This triggers me because this is really disrespectful, offensive rhetoric. This is hurting people almost on purpose—lying about them. Maybe it’s not on purpose. Maybe there’s something that goes on in the mind that starts to twist the facts into your argument because you’re upset. And this is actually how people’s minds work. They’re not very logical. We’re actually not very good at logic. Much better at emotion and creative expression than we are at logic—unless we are able to be very, very calm and rational, and that’s not always a good thing, but it’s useful to be able to do it when we need to.

Okay, so what are the needs here? There’s a need to be treated with respect as a person, as a trans woman or trans man, with autonomy, without having to be something, without having to have a particular sense of humor, particular way of being, and also to treat them as people—not to dehumanize them and talk about their body parts as the important part of them. And so they’re wanting to be treated as people. It’s a request for trans people to be treated as people respectfully. This is a good, deserved request. It’s important to be treated respectfully as people.

“Dorman’s fate—she died by suicide shortly after the release of “Sticks and Stones” in 2019—directly undermines Chappelle’s logic because Dorman was trans. She was at an extremely high risk of dying by suicide or transphobic violence. Any way you look at it, trans people are among the most vulnerable populations in society. Goes on with all of this proof that trans people are vulnerable: 50% of trans people will experience sexual assault or abuse, 54% experience intimate partner violence, and trans people of color are six times more likely to experience police brutality than whites as gendered people.”

 Okay, blah, blah, blah… This is proof that it’s important to look after trans people because they’re very vulnerable, and she was at a high risk of dying by suicide or transphobic violence.

Anyway, okay, 

“this is what Chappelle’s critics mean when they discuss the real-world impact of Chappelle’s transphobia. His comedy, which involves continually insisting against science that gender is always tied to biology, isn’t just reactionary semantics; it’s dangerous rhetoric that has been shown in study after study to directly impact the levels of anti-trans violence and societal prejudice that trans people already face daily.”

There is an implication that maybe his comedy actually led to suicide because his rhetoric is so bad.

Wow, that’s terrible. 

Okay, logically, there are a lot of issues here, but I’m going to start by looking at what Dave Chappelle actually says about this topic. 

“When “Sticks and Stones” came out, a lot of people in the trans people community were furious with me, and apparently they dragged me on Twitter. I don’t give a [expletive] because Twitter’s not a real place. And the hardest thing for a person to do is to go against their tribe if they disagree with their tribe, but Daphne Dorman did that for me. She wrote a tweet that was very beautiful, and what she said was, and it is almost exactly what she said, “Punching down on someone requires you to think less of them, and I know him and he doesn’t punch up, he doesn’t punch down, he punches lines, and he is a master at his craft.” That’s what she said. Beautiful tweet, beautiful friend. It took a lot of heart to defend me like that.

When she did that, the trans community dragged that [expletive] all over Twitter for days. They were going in on her. She was holding her own because she’s funny, but six days after that wonderful night I described to you, my friend Dey killed herself. Oh yeah, this is a true story. My heart was broken. It wasn’t the jokes. I don’t know if it was them dragging her, or I don’t know what was going on in her life, but I bet dragging her didn’t help. I was very angry at them.”

Chappelle’s implying that the trans community’s argumentative rhetoric—attacking Chappelle and then attacking Dorman because she was defending Chappelle—may be what led to her suicide. He’s got some evidence. It’s not clear evidence, but there was something going on, and it wasn’t Chappelle’s rhetoric hurting her. It was her trying to defend Chappelle and standing in the way of the aggressive rhetoric of the trans community. That seemed to be what was going on wrong at the time, that seems actually to have more substance to it than what Aja is saying. Aja is saying that there was some rhetoric that maybe made things worse for her. The evidence is not that. The evidence is the other way around: that the rhetoric from the trans people is what was causing the problem. So Aja is just ignoring an important point that is actually made in this transcript.

So again I ask, have you actually read this or seen the show? Do you actually know what Chappelle is saying? If so, are you consciously ignoring his points, or are you forgetting them, or did you actually not know that he said these things? Either way, there’s something not quite right here.

Okay, now let’s keep going.. There are some accurate facts about how transphobic people have problems. They are vulnerable—not transphobic people, but trans people are vulnerable. 

“This is what Chappelle’s critics mean when they discuss the real-world impact of Chappelle’s transphobia.”

We have a whole series of things. Trans people are vulnerable, but how does Chappelle’s transphobia make that worse? It’s not clarified. Exactly what’s meant by his transphobia isn’t clarified either.

“His comedy, which involves continually insisting that gender is always tied to biology, isn’t just reactionary semantics; it’s dangerous rhetoric that’s been shown in study after study to directly impact the levels of trans violence and societal prejudice that trans people already face daily.”

 So, he insists against science that gender is always tied to biology. But he doesn’t insist that gender is always tied to biology; he says that gender is to some extent tied to biology. Now, there is a difference between a born woman (cisgender woman) and a transgender woman. The way he points that out is through sports. He says, “Is it fair that someone like Caitlyn Jenner, who used to be Bruce Jenner, was voted Woman of the Year after being a woman for only one year?” He then questions, “Does this count?” and wonders if we would get angry if someone like Eminem were named “Black Man of the Year.”

He says, “Gender is a fact. Every human being in this room, every human being on Earth, had to pass through the legs of a woman to be on Earth. That’s a fact.” Now, I’m not saying that trans women aren’t women. I’m just saying that those who grew up biologically male have differences, like not being able to give birth or having different hormone levels.

So, he’s pointing out that there’s a difference. Transgender women can’t have babies, and they grow up with certain different hormones that give them an advantage in sports. Are they really women? I don’t know, but it’s unfair to put them in women’s sports competitions. There should be a distinction in that case. In some areas, distinctions are necessary.

He’s not saying that gender is always tied to biology; he’s saying that there is some difference. So is there something anti-science here? Would scientists say that Caitlyn Jenner didn’t have a period or that there’s no distinction? Think about it—can you claim that anything here is against science?

As I understand it, science shows that there are overlapping bell curves for male and female bodies. Your psychological differences can be more masculine or feminine, and women are generally on one side, men on the other. However, there’s overlap. The extremes are defined, and the overlap shows that biology affects us, but so does something else. There’s a flexible relationship between biology and psychology. The science doesn’t claim there’s no relationship between physical gender and psychological gender; it shows that the relationship is flexible, not exact.

So, it’s also anti-science to say that gender is purely psychological and that there is no difference. There is a difference, but there are also some similarities. The question should be which things are different and which things are the same.

“His comedy involves continually insisting that gender is always tied to biology,” but that’s not accurate. He claims there’s a difference, and if there’s a problem with that, then you’re actually being anti-science because science says there is a difference. There are overlaps, some differences, and some similarities.

“It isn’t just reactionary semantics; it’s dangerous rhetoric that’s been shown in study after study to directly impact the levels of anti-trans violence.” 

But it’s unclear which rhetoric this refers to. When we look at Chappelle’s rhetoric, we don’t see it leading to violence. I clicked on a study that talked about anti-trans violence but didn’t link rhetoric to violence. So, it’s dubious to make the claim that rhetoric creates violence when the study doesn’t support it.

The study mentioned issues like transgender passing and hate crimes in the San Francisco Bay Area, but it didn’t discuss how rhetoric causes violence. The claim that rhetoric is dangerous is not substantiated. If you want to make that point, do it properly.

Some people would like respectful rhetoric that doesn’t disrespect people’s gender choices, similar to what we’ve talked about. But Chappelle doesn’t treat Dorman as though she’s a comedian first and a trans woman second. That claim is completely false. Chappelle doesn’t say that all trans people should have the attitude of comedians like Dorman. He simply likes her attitude and connects with her.

Chappelle views comedians as their own tribe. He claims Dorman was part of his tribe, not the trans community. He says she was a comedian in her soul, and he felt connected to her. That’s all. He likes her style, but he doesn’t say everyone should behave like that.

“Chappelle isn’t just talking about comedy as a medium—he’s talking about comedy as a worldview. Comedy is a subculture with its own rules. One rule is that comedians should always be able to take a joke. Historically, this principle has led to the privileging of the comedian’s right to make rude or offensive jokes. The logic is that if a comedian can take a joke, the audience should be less sensitive. Some recent cultural conversations about comedy and free speech center on the idea that comedians should be able to discomfort their audiences, whether for laughs or for thought. If you can’t handle a joke, that’s your problem, not the joke maker’s.”

“Dorman was great at taking offensive jokes. When an audience member interrupted one of her shows with a transphobic question, she shot back with a joke about her own anatomy. Chappelle admires this kind of response, not anger or protest. He likes humor as deflection. But he doesn’t say everyone should behave that way.”

Chappelle doesn’t demand that all trans people be able to take a joke without getting offended. He simply likes it when people can handle jokes with humor, not anger. His point is that when you’re confronted with transphobia, a deflection with good humor works better than anger or protest.

Chappelle doesn’t say all trans people should be like Dorman. He likes Dorman’s style. His view is that comedy is a worldview, not a set of demands. It’s about how comedians connect with others. It’s not about requiring everyone to follow the same approach. If you want a respectful relationship with someone, you have to treat them respectfully. Arguing, shouting, and canceling people is disrespectful and won’t build a respectful relationship.

“This rule applies best in the comedy world, but not in the lived experiences of everyday people. Chappelle seems to expect all trans people to accept the rules of his comedy subculture. This request is baffling because most people aren’t comedians and aren’t accustomed to jokes meant to hurt them.”

“Chappelle’s idea that trans people should prove they can take a joke before earning respect is problematic. It’s akin to a journalist demanding trans people prove they can use AP style before they can discuss their own gender identity.”

While the example is a bit unusual, it highlights a point: the demand to conform to someone else’s standards before gaining respect is problematic. Respect should be given freely and without demands. If we want respect, we need to learn to give it.

So, I’m claiming he never said anything like this. Let’s read a little bit.

“she stunk when she was doing comedy. The crowd was happy to see me, I was killing it, but what impressed me was that any other comedian I’ve ever seen, if they had bombed as badly as she did, would have snuck out the back of the theater and gone home to cry or something. But she didn’t do that. Not only did she not leave, she found a seat right up front. And you know, when a new comedian watches an experienced comedian in comedy, we call this “taking class.” And this B—she took my whole class. She sat there and was laughing as hard as she always laughs, as if nothing bad had happened to her. And I saw her show, something bad had happened to her. She was drunk, so she starts talking to me while I’m on stage, but the way a person would talk to a television when they were alone, she was talking to me like that. That didn’t bother me because I knew her, but the crowd didn’t like that at all because she sucked. And the guy in the back of the room stood up, and D’s hair was dyed blonde at the time, and the guy screamed out. His energy felt wild as [ __ ] and he said, “Hey Daphne.” Everybody got tense. We didn’t know who was a heckler or an active shooter. He said, “Does the carpet match the drapes?” It was [ __ ] up. The whole crowd groaned because it was so mean, everyone groaned except for D, who kind of laughed, which was weird. She didn’t even look all the way back; she said, “Sir, I don’t have carpets, I have hardwood floors.” Just like that, man. When she said that [ __ ] it blew the roof off the place. It cut through all the tension with that one joke she’d made up after 45 minutes of a stinker of a show. After that, she could do no wrong. I kept on rocking, and she kept on talking to me, and the show became something cooler. It became a conversation between a black man and a white trans woman. We started getting to the bottom of all those questions that you think you’d be afraid to ask. I was just asking them, and she was answering them. And her answers were funny as [ __ ]. The crowd was falling out of their chairs. At the end of the show, I said, “Well, D,” I said, “Well, that was fun.” I go, “I love you to death, but I have no [ __ ] idea what you’re talking about.” The whole crowd laughed except for D. She looked at me like I’m not her friend anymore, like I’m something bigger than me, like I’m the whole world in a guy. She said, “I don’t need you to understand me.” I said, “What?” She said, “I just need you to believe.” Just like that. She goes, “I’m having a human experience.” And when she said it, the whole crowd gasped. I gave the “Fight Club” look and said, “I believe you, B.” Because she didn’t say anything about pronouns. She didn’t say anything about me being in trouble. She just said, “Believe I’m a person, and I’m going through it.” I said, “I believe you because it takes one to know one.” So, there was compassion there, okay? I told the crowd, “Goodnight,” and they started going crazy. Before the applause got too loud, Gendo said, “Don’t forget my opening act, Daphne.” The crowd stood up. I looked at her, tears came out of her eyes, and she couldn’t believe it was happening. I couldn’t believe it was happening because her show stunk, but it was a great night. I remember the late great Paul Mooney was there, a bunch of famous comics were there.” 

So, so far, there’s no comment that everybody should be like Daphne, no. 

“We all went backstage, drinking, talking, laughing, and B stole the room. She had everyone cracking up, spinning the arm, telling us crazy stories about [ __ ] she’d been into, ……….. Oh my God, I said, “Oh my God, she’s funny.” I pulled her aside and said, “You’re hilarious. I didn’t know that when you were on stage you were doing something wrong, but I can help you.” I said, “Anytime I’m in San Francisco, why don’t you open the show for me, and I’ll just try and give you some pointers and see if you can work this thing out.” She said, “Are you serious?” I said, “Yeah.” And she grabbed me real tight, H me, squeezed me, and I pushed her off violently because I’m transphobic. I said, “Boundaries bitch”

okay, cool. “Sticks and Stones came out” We read this before. “Trans—she was dragged by the trans community over Twitter.” She was, and then she kills herself. And then he says, “I was angry with her. I felt like D and E lied to me. She always said she identified as a woman, and she jumps and kills herself. Clearly only a man would do some gangster [ __ ] like that.”

Okay, we’ve done this one before. “Hear me out, as hard as it is to hear a joke like that, I’m telling you right now, D would have L’d that joke. That’s why she was my friend”, okay? Cool. This is the bit where he’s saying that everybody should be like Daphne. I don’t hear it.

Then he talks about how he found out she has a daughter and he started a trust fund for the daughter, and “I don’t know what the trans community did for her, but I don’t care because I feel like she wasn’t their tribe, she was mine. She was a comedian in her soul. The daughter is very young. I hope to be alive when she turns 21 because I’m going to give her this money myself, and by then, I’ll be ready to have the conversation that I’m not ready to have today. But I’ll tell that little girl, ‘Young lady, I knew your father, and he was a wonderful woman.’ “ Another case of misgendering, but necessary in context. He says “empathy is not gay, empathy is not black, empathy is bisexual. It must go both ways. It must, must go both ways.”

Then a couple of things at the end about Dababy and Kevin Hart, which I don’t even know the context of and I don’t care because they’re not relevant to what we’re talking about today.

He doesn’t say, in order to get respect, you have to behave like Daphne. It’s not there, okay?

Next: 

“There’s another rule that comedy holds just as dear—the one about never punching down. Punching down refers to humor that targets vulnerable groups of people who don’t hold much power in society. It exists in opposition to the kind of punch up that aims to critique people and institutions with power. On stage, punching down is generally considered a huge no—the kind of thing that can immediately alienate an audience if you’re not doing it to make a deeper point. Chappelle talks about this concept in “The Closer,” asking the larger LGBTQIA community not to punch down on his people using Kevin Hart and DaBaby as examples. “

He talks about how other people keep claiming that he punches down on people, but he doesn’t think it’s true. He thinks it’s taken out of context, and it’s one line that somebody came up with at one stage earlier in his career when he was actually being a lot more disrespectful in his use of language, not understanding the right ways to say things. He admits that. But then he’s saying people keep saying he’s punching down on people, but it’s not true. Have they actually heard what he’s saying?

So he claims that he’s not punching down.

“Chappelle’s deeper point seems to return again and again to the idea that trans people are too sensitive, and that this sensitivity is somehow bolstered by white fragility. He seems to feel that his prioritization of the pain of Black communities over those of trans communities—as if again, they are entirely separate—justifies an evening devoted to homophobic and transphobic jokes.”

Okay, you’re claiming that he’s punching down because he’s making jokes about…he’s making homophobic and transphobic jokes, but he’s not making homophobic and transphobic jokes. This is a claim that is not justified. He’s making jokes about his experiences with homosexual people and transsexual people, about the relationship difficulty he has with them. He’s not saying terrible things about them, ever.

And then 

“Chappelle, of all people, should know better. He’s hyper-aware as a comedian who frequently uses humor to make points about racial and social justice that comedy impacts the real world. In fact, in 2005, he completely killed his own hit comedy show, “The Chappelle Show,” because of one joke that made him realize, according to an interview at the time, that rather than critiquing racist comedy, he might be reinforcing racist stereotypes of a white audience who were enjoying the joke ironically. So he knows that you have to be sensitive with the jokes you use.”

Apparently, he’s using jokes that are insensitive. It’s not clear which jokes they are, because most of your claims above about what has been said are actually false. So we can’t really understand which jokes are problematic or why they are.

“At the very least, then, Chappelle should know that there’s a possibility his jokes about trans people could be taken the wrong way and used to hurt trans people. There’s even an echo of the 2005 moment in the new special when Chappelle has to stop and gently reprimand an audience member who starts to applaud a transphobic law, as Vulture’s Craig J. Jenkins puts it, “You talk enough, you’ll draw [Music].” Yes, so clearly Chappelle is actually trying to be positive with the trans people and not support transphobic laws, and not allow his audience to support him. He should recognize his possibility for harm.”

Okay, yes, so compassionately what’s going on here? There’s a request to be more sensitive in the jokes—not make hurtful jokes about trans people. And this, I guess, is a fair request. It’s just that it’s not clear exactly what would be okay and what would not be okay, and how one could navigate this territory. As most of the actual detailed critique is not correct, we can’t really understand exactly what it would take to do inoffensive comedy about the topic. Perhaps the idea is that he should not talk about trans people at all, but that would be very much against the other side’s needs for open speech, freedom of speech, and being able to deal with social issues and raise them.

“Rather than acknowledging the possibility and its potential for harm, Chappelle not only justifies his comedy using white privilege, which is inaccurate, but he also goes a step further. He suggests that being hurt is good for trans and non-binary people. When he says, “As hard as it is to hear a joke like that,” and then defends it, he’s telling the audience that he knows the joke is painful, hurtful, and transphobic, but that it’s somehow productive for trans people to be confronted by it. This is as though trans people aren’t already confronted with gender policing in every other moment of their lives.”

So, is this joke painful, hurtful, and transphobic? And does he admit that it’s painful? Well, I’m going to try and answer that, even though I already have my own answer.

He says, “Only a man would do some gangster [__] like that. Hear me out, as hard as it is to hear a joke like that, I’m telling you right now, D would have loved that joke.”

Is it painful? Yes, because it talks about death in a sensitive context. Is it hurtful? I don’t think so. Chappelle isn’t claiming that only a man would behave that way; he’s asking a question. It seems to him that only men would act like that, but he’s not presenting it as an absolute truth. So, is it hurtful? I don’t believe it is. If someone wants to explain why it’s hurtful, then maybe we can continue the discussion in a deeper, more compassionate way.

Is it transphobic? No, it’s about trans issues. He’s admitting that it’s painful but not that it’s hurtful or transphobic. If someone wants to argue further, I’m happy to discuss it. We could look at the issue in more depth and try to resolve it.

Regarding the idea that it’s somehow productive for trans people to be confronted by this joke, no, he’s not claiming that. That’s your interpretation. When people are upset, they often read more into what’s being said than what is actually said.

As for Chappelle’s point about trans people being confronted with transphobia on stage, he’s talking about the discomfort people feel around trans people, not promoting transphobia. He’s not saying that it’s okay to objectify or degrade transgender people, but rather addressing the issue of discomfort around them.

Chappelle’s idea that trans people can be good-humored about others’ continual objectification and degrading of their identity is not about tolerating disrespect. It’s about having a respectful conversation where both sides treat each other with respect, stay good-humored, and don’t objectify or degrade each other.

I didn’t find exactly what Chappelle said, and I’m not giving a perfect defense of it because I’m tired. But let’s get to the end of this article, and we can revisit the discussion in more depth later.

“This isn’t about equality. Chappelle, who has spent his career commenting on racism and injustice through humor, should know that trans people shouldn’t just have to “live with it” or “get over it” when faced with dehumanizing rhetoric. The man who speaks about the fear Black Americans experience daily should understand that telling trans people to accept and embrace transphobic rhetoric isn’t tolerance or the love and good humor he’s known for.”

The critique of Chappelle is claiming things that aren’t true and missing key points. What’s needed is a more respectful discussion on both sides, so we can really address the needs and issues. We should be able to engage with Chappelle’s questions in a respectful way, and if we want him to speak more respectfully, we can express that to him. But as it stands, the critique is inaccurate. The only things that are true are minor mistakes that really aren’t worth getting upset about.

Chappelle is just trying to make a point, and some people find it offensive. If we can clarify why it’s offensive and figure out what would make his rhetoric more respectful, that would be helpful. I’ll follow up with more discussion about how we can create the respect for trans people that’s being asked for. If you disagree, I invite you to join me in an interview, and we can have a serious conversation about this.