Trans

I recently started watching Motherland, a British sitcom about school drop off and arranging childcare. The logistical side of motherhood. I went on IMDb to check out one of the actresses. Then I noticed he was a writer. As was his wife.

I realised that it must have been pre crazy, as she divorced him when he went off the deep end of terfing. I was disappointed as I couldn't in good conscience support him. I then further realised I'd torrented it through sonarr, so I'm happily continuing to watch and glad he's no longer involved with the new spin off, amandaland. I got interested as Sharon Horgan was the main writer now, an I like her stuff. It's a dry look at societal expectations, but more self deprecating than the mean Spirit of Linehan.

However, father Ted, black books and IT crowd are genius, even if they have problems in hindsight.

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.