While it is a Japanese company, this commercial was made for the Thai market. That leads me to believe they're marketing to Kathoey.

Kathoey have double roles in Thai society. Either funny/cute/entertaining, or otherwise the most negative way as "contranatural" gays. This commercial uses the first role of gay men in Thailand... Crossdressers and/or transgender in Thailand are common. I don't think general Thai society would be offended, but to say this commercial promotes transgender and/or crossdressers, would be talking it a step too far (although, it does implicitly), since even it is positively discriminating (role n°1), because it still patronizes the social phenomenon.

Perhaps an interesting question is to see how the above commercial contrasts with the gender-bending Toyota commercial that Lisa posted last September.

Both involve products that are associated with sexual allure.
Both involve a male actor in women's clothing.
Both are commercials for non-American audiences.

Does the conversation have to be so male/female as that? I think there's a lot of trans stuff that gets erased in that discourse - I found it more interesting as highlighting the performance of "female" and demonstrating how conventional attractiveness can be put on and taken off... just so long as its purchased.

the male body? really? are we still talking like that? is this the 80s? have I stepped into an alternate timeline where judith butler wasn't born? You don't know whether that's a male body, or a female body, because you didn't ask the person portrayed. Maleness is something YOU are inscribing on that person. The ad is showing, quite effectively, that the bras work on people without breasts, who may be of any gender assignment or identity.

This ad highlights how gender has become a consumer product.

This is not a case of "normative expectations" because there is not any of two type of "programs". Neither purposeful (Zwekrationalität) nor consequential (if/then). On the other hand, as the example is perhaps involving "Kathoey" culture, segmentary stratification would imply either reciprocity (and in this case it is absent) or "potlatch". This case fits better in the last type. As much of the commentaries, I also agree that it is not an example of gender, but "potlatch," or even better "Weltangshauung".

all of it. whats normative is in transition. this is a nearly early envoy into the new normalcy; also a late last stab at titillation through transgression. what is defined as transgressive is changing. sooner rather than later, whatever iconoclasm still exists will become a much more subtle read than simple externals—an understated alteration which has potential to be both good & bad.

good because by eliminating discrimination by visual, people who wish to be a member of the mainstream will be able to realize this ambition, more or less, no matter who they are [or, at least, how they appear, at least genderwise, to others]. bad because this sort of abundance of universal acceptance causes subcultures to disintegrate [cf the deaf community's response to cochlear implants, for a fine & contemporary example].

we used to call a similar process co-optation & it was despised. this is something of the inverse of that—less a mess of invading hordes & more a folding of new ingredients into the batter before it gets dumped in the melting pot. perhaps, since this is an insistence that the mainstream accepts its dwellers on the outer banks on their own terms, it will be a good development. in the past the loss of community overarchingly overwhelmed any potential benefits but, again, since the current approach arrives from the opposite side there is, at least, the possible possibility of, perhaps, a bit of positive to be gained.

Dunno, I get a sense that they question her authenticity here. For most of the video, she's treated as an object, the camera mostly focuses on the body, nd when we actually see the face, it's mostly settled into a passive smile. It's only when the character shifts into a male identity/performance that he expresses something that challenges the viewer and gives some hint to his personality. Overall it gives the impression that he is supposed to be more real than she is, and I think that goes a long way towards framing this video in a normative way, rather than a subversive way.

"Does this queer the body?"

What does this even mean?

There is nothing transgressive about this. The culture sexualises and commodifies female secondary sex characteristics (female is not an identity category and sex is not an identity, pomo-fans) in order to restrict and control the behavioural patterns of females, imposing a sex-caste/gender category of 'woman' onto them which they are obligated to perform or be rendered invisible.

The advert attempts to give the impression of those secondary sex characteristics on a male who does not possess them, eroticising and commodifying the impression of them again in the process. It then reveals that they are not present, and its entire gambit/message is revealed; if your breasts do not look like the constructed, eroticised, commodified 'norm', you are invited to purchase this commodity in order to make them conform better to how you 'should look'.

The idea that this is transgressive at all is ludicrous. It is the same gender prescription (woman) applied to the same sex class (females) in the same way for the same effect (control, unbalancing, negging, disempowerment, body shaming/policing). That a male is involved in this propaganda from in front of the camera instead of just behind it as per usual is the only novel thing, and the reveal is part of the sales pitch and the overall message; if males can do 'woman' better than females, you females are definitely doing something wrong and need these sorts of products to facilitate your forcible and terrorism-based conformity into the woman category.

I found it rather heteronormative actually. I'd also avoid gendering the bodies if people of undetermined gender.

I am not trying to dismiss all of the other comments here. But I think the most important point is that this (like the Toyota commercial mentioned above) is NOT designed for an American or even a western audience. This is meant to be shown in Thailand. I know almost nothing about Thai culture or how gender is perceived there. That makes almost all of the analysis here irrelevant. All this would be interesting if this was playing in the US, but it isn't.

why is the tag "japan" and not thailand? :/

This is actually really good advertising, it shows how good the bra works.
That's all I see here, advertisement just like any other advertisement.