An image of JD Vance allegedly dressed as a woman and wearing a blonde wig was posted to X, formerly known as Twitter, on Sunday. The unconfirmed image quickly picked up steam and began trending under the hashtag #SofaLoren, a reference to the iconic Italian actress Sophia Loren and false claims that the Republican senator had sex with a couch.
…
Many commenters online connected Vance’s alleged history of cross-dressing with his legislative history—which has long been a point of concern for LGBTQ+ advocacy groups.
The Ohio senator introduced the “Protect Children’s Innocence Act,” which aims to criminalize medical institutions that provide gender-affirming care to minors.
The Republican vice presidential pick also supports measures to limit classroom discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity, and labeled critics of so-called “don’t say gay” legislation “groomers.”
I agree with this sentiment on a lot of political attacks - especially ones about physical characteristics or things a person can’t control - but in this case I see it used more as “see? This is fine. He clearly thought it was fine too and now he acts like this makes people automatically pedophiles. What the hell is that about?”
People hand wave the others with “hypocrisy” which I don’t think is enough, but this? It’s not the hypocrisy (and those in this thread saying it are actually missing why this is significant/are piling on for the wrong reasons). It’s “this is a totally fine thing to do yet you and your party have decided it isn’t even when you did it yourself for fun.
He did nothing wrong dressing like that, yet he now insists it is wrong.
What do you think hypocrisy is, if not this? Because this is the textbook definition of hypocrisy.
Where did I say this wasn’t hypocritical?
I don’t think anyone is really clear what you’re saying, even though we seem to be on the same side. You seem to be suggesting that the hypocrisy isn’t the real problem, it’s that he once did this thing and now claims that it’s wrong for others to do it. And that’s literally the textbook definition of hypocrisy: the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one’s own behavior does not conform.
JD Vance claims dressing in drag is morally wrong yet he himself has dressed in drag in the past. That makes him a hypocrite. That’s the hypocrisy that people are pointing out. I don’t know what counter-argument you’re trying to put forward.
I explained it thoroughly in two comments. You get it or you don’t, I’m done.
One last thing though: that’s not drag.
So is you point that pointing out hypocrisy isn’t enough?
I would disagree in part, but that would make way more sense if that’s what you’ve been trying to say.
I think the hypocrisy isn’t what matters so much as all the other stuff I’ve explained. People are missing what makes this distinct and why it matters. I’ve explained my stance pretty thoroughly at this point.