IMHO I don't think RG is necessarily coming out as someone who is wholeheartedly in agreement with one side or another. He's shining a light on some of the more ridiculous arguments. But in another clip he talks about how he'll take one side or another in political debates to find the funniest jokes.
This is true and it makes me wonder. In their recent specials, Gervais and Chapelle know they have to take extra pains to 1) set out their stall, explain what jokes are and how they'll be telling them and 2) later break character to reiterate that of course they are not anti trans, human rights etc.
Yet those wanting to find offence will only accept one part of the act - the bit they they didn't like - as reflective of the performer's thoughts in real life.
(This also extends to JKR's measured caveats about supporting trans rights. They will not believe that, although they attribute the worst intentions to her thoughts on women's rights.)
Why is that, I don't wonder?