The video by Forrest valaki discusses a large series of scientific concepts around gender, sexuality and sex. It has an entire scientific research team credited in the description and 377 references but of course transphobes don’t care and would rather look like a fool throwing play ground insults around. This whole video and interaction made my day. Transphobes can be a very funny bunch.
omg, it’s a remake of the video!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVQplt7Chos
I remember when he took down the original Sex and Sensibility video, but I didn’t know he was working on a new one!! 🙌
EDIT: I’m only 40 minutes in and I would say the old one was better for the average person - the new video is much more dense and packed full of facts and information at a fast pace, the original video did a better job staying focused and engaging. I have a pretty strong tolerance for dry content and even I found my mind wandering and having to intentionally stay focused, and if that’s happening I know a bigot is not going to make it even minutes into this video before tuning out.
Part of the reason right-wing, anti-trans rhetoric’s message is “common sense” and “it’s simple: male and female” is because it’s good rhetoric. You lose people when you start to get into the technical details, and if there is any anti-intellectualism bias, that works against you even more.
Will have to finish the video, but so far I’m disappointed in the changes as a tool for helping educate and change minds, even if enjoying all the new content - I had no idea that every cell with XX will choose one X or the other to be expressed, and that this is how calico cats get the random pattern of hair colors!!
He might of shifted the focus, idk. I mean it makes sense tbh the transphobes current day are different then the transphobes when he made the og video. A lot of them are more defensive and not willing to listen no matter what someone online says.
If I where him I would of changed the target the audience from transphobes to be trans allies and people who don’t know much about trans people(but aren’t transphobic). Cus those folks might be encouraged by this video into trying to deradicalize transphobes they know irl cus and the more accurate scientific information you know the better you can argue against bs. So it’s less of a casual debunk video and more of a study guide people might want to re review multiple times till it fully sticks.
Also imo the only chance modern transphobes might change is if someone they personally know well and respect tells them they are harmful.
I don’t think so, the video is clearly aimed at people who don’t know any better and who have misconceptions about sex being binary. Over and over he attempts to clarify mistakes he sees in the thinking of naive and right-wing conceptions of sex and gender, and he does so as if directly addressing people who hold those beliefs.
If you watch his other videos, they are similar in that they are debunking videos directly addressing creationist rhetoric. That’s not to say his audience is not mostly liberals and like-minded folks, but the way he creates his videos are as if he were talking directly to the right-wingers.
So I don’t think the first video has a different intended target audience than the second video, I just think he made the second video longer and more dense. I don’t know if you watched the first video, but it was similar in a lot of ways - I wouldn’t have described it as a casual debunk video, it was similar in many ways to the new video but shorter, better organized, and easier to follow.
But I do agree with you that it would make more sense to target centrists, liberals, and progressives since the right-wing 1. aren’t likely to sit and actually pay attention to his video, and 2. will refuse to accept what he says even if it’s backed by evidence. That would be smart, but it’s not what Forrest did - nor do I think he is particularly focus on rhetorical effectiveness, he reminds me of the early Youtube atheist scene of “rational thinkers debunking superstition” and so on - he prioritizes what is factually right over how people are likely to feel or relate to beliefs like the ones he is trying to debunk. The problem is that rational argument doesn’t usually change minds, and being evidence-based isn’t enough for people to accept a radically different viewpoint.