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.”

  • Volkditty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    3 months ago

    What do you think hypocrisy is, if not this? Because this is the textbook definition of hypocrisy.

      • Volkditty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        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.

      • MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        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.