Opinion | George Santos’s denial was a real drag

However nearly as quickly because the information broke that our favourite congressional dissembler apparently had a former life as “Kitara Ravache,” he felt it essential to step ahead and deny the entire thing.

I don’t know what dissatisfied me extra, the likelihood that he may by no means have actually been a drag performer or that, if true, he felt it essential to deny it.

Why, I puzzled, did Santos (R-N.Y.) really feel so strongly to answer this specific controversy? What was there about sporting a gown that was someway extra shameful than, say, mendacity concerning the Holocaust, or making up tales about 9/11?

On Instagram, a former good friend of Santos’s, Eula Rochard — a Brazilian drag queen — posted {a photograph} of herself that certain seems like she’s with the younger man then often called Anthony. The picture exhibits him in a stunning purple off-the-shoulder sequined gown, brunette wig and a pair of dangly earrings.

I assume it’s not not possible that every one of this may develop into a “deep faux,” and that Santos has spent his life sadly earring-free. However a second supply quoted by Reuters avowed that the younger Mr. Santos had, throughout this similar time interval, aspired to be Miss Homosexual Rio de Janeiro.

For his half, the congressman stated that the claims had been “categorically false” and added that he wouldn’t be “distracted nor fazed by this.”

Beforehand, when confronted with a protracted string of fabrications, from claiming that he was a volleyball star at a school he by no means attended to his story about having labored at Goldman Sachs, he by no means felt it essential to respond with way more than, “I’ve my story to inform and it will likely be instructed subsequent week.” Which he by no means actually bought round to doing.

However an accusation that he as soon as carried out in drag — which might put him within the completely regular firm of Rudy Giuliani — this, apparently, couldn’t stand.

For me, wanting upon that picture — by which the particular person proven, let the document present, seems improbable — it’s not possible not to consider the Chico Marx (not Groucho) line, “Who’re you gonna imagine, me or your individual eyes?”

My disappointment that Santos discovered it essential to disavow one thing that, not like his lies, ought to actually be no supply of disgrace, went deeper the extra I considered it. There’s a trope about “deceit” within the nationwide dialog round transgender folks — that we’re someway not what we seem like, that we’re going by way of the turmoil of transition to not discover a sense of hard-won authenticity however as a substitute as a part of some form of imaginary plot to hurt the womenfolk.

Santos isn’t trans, however it might probably’t be good to have this new aspect folded into the bigger story of the congressman as a liar and a deceiver. It’s precisely this trope that has performed folks like me a lot hurt.

It additionally doesn’t assist that my fellow progressives are discovering a lot merriment within the Santos drag story. The amusement, on the floor, is about busting him, as soon as once more, for his hypocrisy, and in that case: truthful sufficient. However there’s one thing deeper and meaner within the laughter, too, I believe, as if the one factor which may carry Republicans and Democrats collectively is their shared disdain for a person in a gown.

It’s Republicans, although, who’re trying to show that disdain into nationwide coverage. In a season by which the GOP seems to haven’t any coverage agenda moreover obstruction, opposition to pull queens seems to be one of many few issues that the present Republican Occasion truly believes in.

Santos was elected final fall as the primary non-incumbent homosexual Republican member of Congress. Which on the floor appeared like an excellent factor, a few of his precise politics however. The extra queer folks now we have in Congress, the extra doubtless it’s that our voices shall be heard. Additionally, the extra homosexual Republicans who make it to Congress, the extra doubtless that members of the GOP may come to grasp that sexual orientation, and gender identification, aren’t points distinctive to liberals. We’re everyone.

Ultimately, although, there’s no such factor as “precise politics however.” Upon arrival in Congress, Santos appeared inclined to hitch the Home Freedom Caucus. That may be the group of conservative legislators dedicated to, amongst different issues, rolling again marriage equality and employment protections for LGBTQ Individuals. They seem to imagine that any suggestion that queer lives might be fulfilling, and regular, and enjoyable is a part of some (truly fictional) program of “grooming” kids into being homosexual, or lesbian, or trans.

Nobody can “flip” a baby homosexual, in the identical manner that nobody can “flip” a baby straight. What you are able to do is “flip” somebody from being a close-minded bigot and into somebody extra accepting of all the various other ways there are of being human.

With the most recent twist of his story, George Santos had a chance to make folks assume properly of him once more. He may need stated, “It’s true I did drag in my youthful days; that was a enjoyable time and I would like everybody to know that I assist everybody’s proper to pursue their goals, whether or not they’re a part of my LGBTQ neighborhood or a part of another marginalized group nonetheless looking for full equality below the legislation.”

He might have stated that, and for a single second, gained again just a little of the respect he’s misplaced since his election.

However he didn’t. As a result of the group he seeks to hitch has no place of their hearts for anybody who’s totally different. As a result of the group he seeks to hitch is much less taken with laws than destruction. As a result of the group he seeks to hitch isn’t actually all that involved with whether or not the issues it says are true.