I saw this video before, and my first impression was “well how she looks good both ways”. Now I see the immediate differences between her role as a woman and her role as a man. The video was brilliant. It speaks volumes about gender fluidity, and what it is to be gender fluid, with the imagery presented as she shows you her own interpretation of what it means to be non-gender conforming. The video starts with Ruby putting on heels, and then the camera zooms in on her nails and purse (seemingly feminine expressions). It fragmentizes expressions of femininity and masculinity, but not the subject herself. When she cuts their hair, she seems free of a weight on her shoulders, and the camera focuses on the hair on the ground, which to her, is the beginning of freedom. She is demonstrating what it is like to have an identity that deviates from the status quo, and what is expected. Since Ruby Rose herself is gender fluid, this was her way of using imagery to equate a sense of freedom with simple acts, such as washing off the tattoos, or taking off her fake eyelashes.
In the end she’s saying "what the fuck are you looking at" several times when she is a man, and many people were slightly offended that her portrayal of men was aggressive. But I think it is there to point out the emotional outrage when being judged or stared at by people who don't understand it.
Like in “Against me!”, this video does not objectify either one, or perhaps objectifies both but in a way that is subtle enough so viewers cant accuse the video of accommodating to the male gaze or the women’s gaze. It does not size her up, but it does fragmentize her breasts in the beginning and then the binding of it later, and also the penis in the end. But the purpose of that is to highlight the differences in her expression of herself.
(Note: I believe Ruby Rose goes by the pronouns “she/her” even though she is gender-neutral. If not please correct me)