His Broadway Debut Ended Before It Began After Fans Found His Anti-Trans Videos

admin
-
0
His Broadway Debut Ended Before It Began After Fans Found His Anti-Trans Videos

Geno Segers was announced as Broadway’s next Hades on Wednesday, but by Sunday he was gone from the production.

The extraordinarily fast sequence began on July 29, when the producers of Hadestown unveiled a new group of principal performers who would join the Broadway musical on September 1.

The cast included Jasmin Savoy Brown as Eurydice, Kayko as Orpheus, Norbert Leo Butz as Hermes and Amber Iman as Persephone.

Segers, an actor known for television roles in Yellowstone, Banshee and Disney XD’s Pair of Kings, was set to play Hades.

It would have been his Broadway debut.

Within hours of the announcement, however, theatre fans began circulating old videos and social media posts in which Segers discussed transgender people.

By August 2, the production had announced that he would no longer be joining the show.

His Broadway debut had ended before he ever reached the stage.

What Segers Said

The controversy centred on videos Segers had published on YouTube with titles including “TRANS FAIRNESS?”, “NO MORE TRANS?” and “HE… I MEAN SHE BROKE THE RECORD.”

In the clips, Segers criticised transgender women participating in women’s sports and questioned the practice of asking people to state their preferred pronouns.

He also said that he did not believe transgender people were being oppressed.

“I’m not against anyone living out their lives the way they want, but I am against their rights superseding the rights of other people,” Segers said in one of the videos.

He then described that as “a little bit foul.”

In another video reportedly published in 2024, Segers compared demands for transgender rights with people falsely claiming that pets were service animals to receive special treatment while travelling by air.

The clips were highlighted by the theatre publication OnStage Blog and quickly spread across social media.

Segers subsequently removed the videos and made some of his social media accounts private.

Hadestown Responded Within Days

The producers did not describe Segers as having been fired and did not publicly identify the videos as the reason for his departure.

Instead, they issued a brief and carefully worded statement.

“The producers of Hadestown and Geno Segers have mutually agreed that Mr. Segers will no longer join the Broadway production,” they said.

The statement added that further casting would be announced shortly.

The timing nevertheless made the connection difficult to miss, because the announcement came after several days of mounting criticism from fans and members of the theatre community.

The distinction remains important.

It is reasonable to conclude that the controversy played a central role in what happened, but the production has not publicly said that Segers was formally dismissed because of his comments.

Why This Casting Felt Different

Any Broadway performer discovered to have made such remarks might have faced criticism, but the reaction was especially intense because of the show Segers had been hired to join.

Hadestown has developed a strong following among LGBTQ+ audiences and a reputation for gender-expansive casting.

The musical retells the Greek myths of Orpheus and Eurydice and Hades and Persephone, but its characters have never been tied rigidly to one gender presentation.

Transgender and nonbinary performers have appeared in the show’s Broadway and West End companies.

J. Harrison Ghee, who became one of the first openly nonbinary actors to win a Tony Award, was playing Hermes when the new cast was announced.

Nonbinary performer Alex Lugo has worked as a swing in the Broadway company, while transgender actress Allie Daniel appeared as a Fate and covered the role of Hermes in the original West End production.

The show’s audience also includes many queer and transgender people who see its themes of freedom, power, chosen community and resistance reflected in their own lives.

For those fans, the issue was not simply that an actor held opinions they disliked.

It was that a production associated with inclusion had hired someone whose public comments appeared to dismiss the experiences of transgender people already represented within its company and audience.

His Intended Co-Star Spoke Up

Amber Iman, who had been cast as Persephone opposite Segers’ Hades, indicated that she had raised concerns away from social media.

After his departure was announced, she shared a news story about the decision on Instagram.

“I wasn’t posting, but I was not quiet,” she wrote.

“Sometimes you gotta get off social media and demand answers.”

She added that she would not accept her onstage “husband” being a clown unless they were at the circus.

Her response suggested that the public backlash was not the only pressure facing the production.

People expected to work directly with Segers were also asking questions behind the scenes.

Segers Apologised After His Departure

On August 3, one day after the production announced that he would no longer appear in the show, Segers issued a public apology.

“I wish to extend my most sincere apologies to everyone impacted by my words,” he wrote.

He said that although he had never intended to cause harm, he recognised that the impact of his statements mattered more than his intentions.

Segers said he was committed to listening, educating himself and raising his standards.

He also apologised to the cast, creative team and producers of Hadestown for the stress his actions had brought to the production.

The apology arrived after the role had already been lost, which will inevitably leave some readers questioning whether it reflected genuine reconsideration or the consequences of a professional crisis.

There is no way for outsiders to know what Segers now believes.

The meaningful test will be what he does after the immediate controversy has passed.

Was This “Cancel Culture”?

The familiar language of cancellation will undoubtedly be applied to the story.

Segers expressed his views publicly, people criticised those views publicly, and an employer then decided that the working relationship could not continue.

That does not mean nobody should debate whether the response was proportionate.

People can believe that his comments were harmful while still asking whether performers should be removed from jobs because of opinions expressed outside their work.

But freedom of expression does not require an audience, cast or production company to ignore what someone has chosen to say.

A theatre production is also a workplace.

Its producers have responsibilities not only to ticket buyers, but to performers and crew members who must feel able to work together safely and professionally.

When a show has built part of its identity around welcoming transgender and nonbinary artists, those responsibilities become difficult to separate from its public values.

The Question Hadestown Had to Answer

The central question was therefore larger than whether Geno Segers deserved a Broadway role.

What responsibility does an inclusive production have when a newly hired performer’s public statements appear to conflict with the community represented onstage, backstage and in the audience?

The producers could have defended the casting, waited for the controversy to fade or asked audiences to separate the performer from his views.

Instead, they acted before rehearsals led to a Broadway performance.

That decision protected the production’s relationship with its audience, but it also sent a message to the people working inside it.

Inclusion cannot function only as a casting aesthetic or a marketing promise.

It also has to influence what happens when those values become inconvenient.

Hadestown has not explained everything that happened during those four remarkable days.

But by the time its new cast takes the stage in September, there will be a different actor playing the god of the underworld.

Geno Segers will not be there.

And a Broadway debut that was announced with considerable excitement will be remembered instead for ending before it began.

📷 @hadestown

🎬 Prefer video? Subscribe to B-Gay on YouTube: https://youtube.com/@BGaycom

Roy Cohn Helped Destroy Gay Lives, but His Political Legacy Survived Him

admin
-
0
Roy Cohn Helped Destroy Gay Lives, but His Political Legacy Survived Him

Forty years after his death, Roy Cohn remains one of the most disturbing figures in modern American political history—not simply because he lived a contradiction, but because his private reality never softened his public cruelty.

Roy Cohn died on August 2, 1986, at the age of 59.

His representatives said he had died from complications of liver cancer, but contemporary reporting established that he had AIDS.

Cohn continued denying the diagnosis publicly, just as he had always denied being gay despite extensive reporting about his relationships with men.

That denial is often presented as the final irony of his life.

But describing Roy Cohn as a hypocrite does not fully explain him.

His story is more unsettling than that.

Cohn did not merely conceal part of himself while living in an intolerant era, because he helped strengthen the political machinery that made such concealment necessary.

He turned suspicion, shame and fear into instruments of power—and used them against people whose vulnerability he understood from the inside.

The Young Lawyer Beside Joseph McCarthy

Cohn was only 26 when he became chief counsel to Senator Joseph McCarthy’s investigations subcommittee in 1953.

McCarthy is remembered primarily for his reckless hunt for alleged communists inside the United States government.

But the same period also produced another purge, now known as the Lavender Scare.

Gay men and lesbians working for the federal government were portrayed as morally weak, psychologically unstable and vulnerable to blackmail.

Their sexuality was treated not simply as a private matter but as evidence that they posed a threat to national security.

Thousands of suspected gay and lesbian employees were investigated, interrogated, dismissed or pressured to resign.

Careers were destroyed, families were devastated and some of those targeted took their own lives.

Others spent decades hiding relationships and carefully editing every part of their public behaviour.

Cohn helped advance this culture of persecution while working alongside McCarthy.

He participated in investigations that treated alleged homosexuality and alleged communism as connected dangers, helping legitimise the idea that queer people did not belong in public service.

The contradiction was already present.

During the televised Army–McCarthy hearings in 1954, insinuations about Cohn’s own sexuality surfaced publicly.

Yet there is little evidence that the experience produced empathy for the people being targeted.

Instead, he continued building a career around aggression, denial and the destruction of opponents.

Power as Protection

After McCarthy’s downfall, Cohn returned to New York and reinvented himself as a lawyer, political fixer and social power broker.

His clients stretched across business, politics, organised crime, entertainment and the Catholic Church.

He became known less for elegant legal arguments than for his willingness to intimidate adversaries, manipulate publicity and treat every dispute as a war that had to be won.

He cultivated influential friends, hosted lavish parties and made himself useful to powerful people who wanted problems solved without too many questions being asked.

Cohn appeared to understand power not merely as status but as protection.

In a society that treated gay men as weak, shameful and disposable, he fashioned himself into someone feared by almost everyone around him.

He could associate privately with men while publicly aligning himself with political and religious forces hostile to homosexuality.

He behaved as though influence could place him outside the rules imposed on everyone else.

Perhaps that is one reason his private reality never translated into public solidarity.

Cohn did not appear to imagine freedom as something people could possess together, because he understood security as something the powerful secured only for themselves.

As B-Gay has explored in other stories about LGBTQ+ history, belonging to a persecuted community does not automatically create compassion for other people facing the same prejudice.

The Mentor Donald Trump Was Looking For

In 1973, a young Donald Trump and his father faced a federal lawsuit accusing their company of discriminating against Black prospective tenants.

Rather than encouraging compromise, Cohn advised Trump to attack.

The Trump organisation countersued the federal government, accused officials of misconduct and turned the legal battle into a public confrontation.

The countersuit was dismissed, and the original case was eventually settled without an admission of wrongdoing.

But the relationship between Trump and Cohn endured.

Cohn became Trump’s lawyer, adviser and political mentor.

Accounts of their relationship consistently describe the lessons Cohn modelled: counterattack immediately, dominate the story, admit nothing and never allow an opponent to define the terms of the fight.

Those tactics are now familiar far beyond New York real estate.

Cohn understood that an accusation did not have to be disproved if it could be overwhelmed.

Bad publicity could be converted into attention, institutions could be weakened by attacking their credibility and aggression itself could be presented as evidence of strength.

His influence on Trump is one reason Cohn’s life cannot be treated merely as a dark curiosity from the McCarthy era.

The man died in 1986, but the political style survived.

The Truth He Would Not Name

Accounts of Cohn’s personal life describe relationships with men, including Peter Fraser, who was his companion during the final years of his life.

But Cohn rejected the identity that those relationships appeared to imply.

Political operative Roger Stone later described Cohn as someone who did not consider himself gay because he associated gay identity with weakness and effeminacy, while placing himself in a separate category as a powerful man who had sex with men.

That distinction reveals something important.

Cohn’s denial was not necessarily a refusal to recognise what he did, but a refusal to accept membership in a group he had learned to despise.

He could acknowledge desire while rejecting identity, community and vulnerability.

To call himself gay would have meant associating himself with people who were criminalised, mocked, fired, beaten and abandoned.

Cohn had built his entire public identity around never appearing vulnerable.

When AIDS entered his life, he approached it in much the same way he approached political accusations: deny the premise, control the narrative and attack anyone who challenged it.

He insisted that he had liver cancer.

He also used his connections to gain access to experimental treatment while many other people with AIDS were struggling to receive even basic care.

Cohn continued appearing publicly and fighting disbarment proceedings almost until the end.

Weeks before his death, New York’s highest court disbarred him for unethical conduct that included dishonesty, fraud and misrepresentation.

Even then, he portrayed himself as the victim of a vendetta.

AIDS Was Not His Punishment

There is a temptation to tell Roy Cohn’s death as a form of poetic justice: the man who helped persecute gay people was ultimately killed by an illness devastating gay communities.

That interpretation should be resisted.

AIDS was not a moral judgement, and it was not punishment for hypocrisy.

It killed hundreds of thousands of people in the United States, including activists, artists, caregivers and ordinary men whose lives were treated with appalling indifference.

The tragedy of Cohn’s ending is not that AIDS “came for him.”

It is that even as the epidemic exposed the deadly consequences of stigma, secrecy and political neglect, Cohn remained committed to denial.

The vulnerability he shared with countless other gay men did not lead him towards solidarity with them.

He continued trying to separate himself from the people dying around him.

More Than a Hypocrite

Roy Cohn’s life raises a difficult question: how can someone who belongs to a persecuted community become one of its persecutors?

There is no single answer.

Fear may have played a role, along with ambition, self-loathing and the desire to survive in institutions where homosexuality could destroy a career.

But those pressures explain only so much.

Many closeted gay people lived under the same threats without choosing to destroy other people’s lives.

Cohn repeatedly made that choice.

His story therefore should not be reduced to the familiar image of the secretly gay homophobe.

That framing can become too comfortable because it allows us to imagine that exposure alone defeats cruelty.

It suggests that revealing the hidden contradiction somehow explains or neutralises it.

Cohn’s private life did not cancel his public actions.

Nor did belonging to a marginalised group automatically make him compassionate, politically progressive or willing to defend others like himself.

What he wanted was not liberation.

He wanted exemption.

The Shadow He Left Behind

Forty years after Roy Cohn’s death, the political culture he helped shape remains recognisable.

LGBTQ+ people are still portrayed as threats to children, morality and national stability.

Political movements still turn vulnerable minorities into symbols of social decline.

Accusations are still repeated until they begin to feel true.

Institutions are still attacked whenever they threaten powerful people, and cruelty is still marketed as strength.

Cohn did not invent all of those tactics.

But he practised them with unusual discipline and passed them to people capable of carrying them much further.

That is why his story still matters.

Not because his private life offers a satisfying historical irony.

Not because his death provides a moral ending.

But because Roy Cohn demonstrated how repression can be converted into power—and how a person can spend a lifetime running from the truth while teaching an entire political culture to do the same.

Forty years later, Roy Cohn is gone, but anyone following today’s politics may recognise that his shadow never really left the room.

🎬 Prefer video? Subscribe to B-Gay on YouTube: https://youtube.com/@BGaycom

Rob Jetten Makes History At Amsterdam Pride As Crowds Fill The Canals

admin
-
0
Rob Jetten Makes History At Amsterdam Pride As Crowds Fill The Canals

Rob Jetten made history on Saturday by becoming the first Dutch prime minister to take part in Amsterdam’s famous Canal Parade.

The appearance came during WorldPride celebrations, which this year are being hosted in Amsterdam as the Netherlands marks 25 years since becoming the first country to legalize same-sex marriage.

For Jetten, the event was both a celebration and a statement.

Speaking before boarding his boat, the openly gay prime minister encouraged young LGBTQ+ people to come out despite the fear that often accompanies the decision.

He said it was frightening when he was a teenager too, but that life became better once he embraced who he was.

Jetten also described the Canal Parade as a day of freedom and joy while stressing that Pride remains a protest.

He pointed to last week’s deadly attack at Berlin Pride and warned that LGBTQ+ acceptance is facing renewed pressure both in the Netherlands and around the world.

Those words gave additional meaning to what might otherwise have looked like a festive appearance.

Amsterdam introduced heightened security for the parade following the Berlin attack, although organizers worked to ensure visitors noticed as little disruption as possible.

Police boats, helicopters and additional officers were deployed throughout the city.

Despite those precautions, hundreds of thousands of spectators packed the canals to celebrate.

Around 80 decorated boats travelled through the historic waterways representing LGBTQ+ organizations, government departments, community groups and businesses.

Jetten joined Pride director Lucien Spee aboard a small organizational boat and completed part of the parade route before greeting spectators from the Amstel.

His presence quickly became one of the day’s most photographed moments.

Throughout the evening, Jetten reshared dozens of Instagram Stories posted by spectators who had captured him waving, smiling and celebrating with the crowds.

The flood of reposts created a collective scrapbook of the day from hundreds of different perspectives.

Rather than polished campaign photography, the images showed spontaneous moments shared by ordinary Pride visitors.

That openness reflected one of the defining qualities of Amsterdam Pride itself.

The Canal Parade has always combined political visibility with celebration, allowing LGBTQ+ people to be seen not only by politicians but alongside them.

Jetten’s appearance also carried symbolic importance because openly LGBTQ+ national leaders remain exceptionally rare.

His participation demonstrated visible support at a time when many LGBTQ+ communities are facing increasing hostility.

In speeches before the parade, Jetten also announced plans to strengthen LGBTQ+ protections through new legislation and additional funding for safety initiatives.

Whether remembered for the history it made or simply for the smiles it created, Saturday’s Canal Parade offered a powerful reminder that representation still matters.

Sometimes leadership means making laws.

Sometimes it means waving from a Pride boat and allowing thousands of young people to imagine themselves there one day too.

📷 @jettenrob @nu.nl

🎬 Prefer video? Subscribe to B-Gay on YouTube: https://youtube.com/@BGaycom

West Virginia Pastor Rejects LGBTQ-Friendly Help As Food Bank Shelves Sit Empty

admin
-
0
West Virginia Pastor Rejects LGBTQ-Friendly Help As Food Bank Shelves Sit Empty

A West Virginia pastor says his food bank has been left without supplies after he refused assistance connected to organizations that support LGBTQ+ people.

Pastor Alvin Christian runs God’s Store House Food Bank in Bluefield, a small city near the border between West Virginia and Virginia.

The organization opened its local location in 2023 and quickly became a significant source of help for families experiencing food insecurity.

Local television station WVVA reported during its first year that between 500 and 800 families could attend a distribution on a busy day (LGBTQ Nation).

The food bank previously described itself as a judgment-free service that would not turn anyone away.

A recently posted video revealed that its cupboards, warehouse and freezers were now empty.

Christian acknowledged in the since-deleted Facebook Live broadcast that the shortage was connected to decisions he had made about potential food suppliers.

He said he had contacted organizations and asked whether they were connected to or partnered with LGBTQ+ causes.

After receiving confirmation that some supported LGBTQ+ people, Christian said he refused to accept their food.

He specifically referred to Feeding America, the nationwide nonprofit network that connects food banks, donors and community organizations.

Christian said he would not participate in what he called the “gay rights movement” and described LGBTQ+ inclusion as an “abomination against God.”

He presented the refusal as a religious stand he was prepared to maintain regardless of its cost.

The immediate cost, however, is being carried by people who depend upon the food bank rather than by the pastor alone.

Christian said the organization had nothing available to distribute while he searched for a supplier that met his religious requirements.

He asked supporters to pray that another source of food would become available.

At the same time, Christian insisted that he would not personally discriminate against an LGBTQ+ person seeking assistance.

He said he would love, pray for and give food to anyone who came to him.

That assurance contains an obvious contradiction when the same opposition to LGBTQ+ inclusion has helped leave the food bank without anything to give.

Christian later posted another video saying the situation had been misunderstood.

In that explanation, he claimed the food bank was not rejecting donated supplies but refusing to purchase food from organizations that might use the money to support LGBTQ+ groups.

That revised explanation does not match the way Feeding America describes its hunger-relief network.

Feeding America is a nonprofit organization that works through a nationwide network of member food banks, food pantries and meal programs.

It receives food through donations, retailers, manufacturers, farmers and other partnerships before distributing assistance across the country.

The organization does not operate as an ordinary commercial supplier selling groceries to local charities for profit.

Christian’s original video also repeatedly described rejecting food because of the organizations’ LGBTQ+ connections rather than avoiding a purchase.

The available reporting does not establish precisely which offers were made, what quantities were available or whether Feeding America directly offered supplies to God’s Store House.

Feeding America had not publicly responded to LGBTQ Nation’s request for comment when its report was published.

The pastor’s own explanation nevertheless confirms that support for LGBTQ+ people was central to his decision.

The controversy is particularly troubling because LGBTQ+ people themselves experience disproportionately high levels of poverty and food insecurity.

Research has found that many LGBTQ+ people are also reluctant to approach faith-based charities because they fear judgment, harassment or rejection.

Many religious food banks provide welcoming and essential assistance without attaching conditions to identity or belief.

Actions like Christian’s risk reinforcing the fear that religious aid may come with an ideological test.

The story also illustrates the difference between personal religious conviction and responsibility for a public-facing charitable service.

Christian is entitled to his theological beliefs and to express opposition to LGBTQ+ rights.

But a food bank exists to collect resources and transfer them to people who need help.

Rejecting safe food because someone involved supports gay or transgender people does nothing to reduce hunger or protect Christian doctrine.

It turns donated groceries into symbols within a political conflict they were meant to bypass.

A box of cereal does not endorse marriage equality, and a can of vegetables does not carry a gender identity.

The families arriving at God’s Store House are unlikely to care whether the person who donated their dinner attended Pride or supported an LGBTQ+ colleague.

They care whether there is enough food to take home.

Christian has said he hopes faith will lead him to a new source of supplies.

That may eventually happen, and the food bank could reopen its distributions.

Until then, its empty shelves demonstrate the practical consequences of placing religious purity above cooperation.

The pastor may consider the refusal his sacrifice, but the people leaving without groceries are the ones being asked to pay for it.

📷 AI

🎬 Prefer video? Subscribe to B-Gay on YouTube: https://youtube.com/@BGaycom

Andy Cohen Defends Anthony Fauci And Reminds Viewers Who Showed Up During AIDS

admin
-
0
Andy Cohen Defends Anthony Fauci And Reminds Viewers Who Showed Up During AIDS

Andy Cohen briefly moved Watch What Happens Live away from celebrity gossip and reality television to deliver an unusually serious defence of Dr. Anthony Fauci.

The openly gay host selected Fauci for his “Mazel of the Day” following a contentious appearance before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

Fauci had been subpoenaed by Republican committee chair Rand Paul to answer questions about his management of the COVID-19 pandemic and previous testimony concerning federally funded coronavirus research.

The former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases invoked his Fifth Amendment rights more than 100 times during the approximately three-hour hearing.

Fauci said he followed his attorney’s advice because he believed Paul was attempting to create a path toward prosecuting him.

Paul and other Republican senators accuse Fauci of misleading Congress and the public about the origins of COVID-19 and research involving bat coronaviruses in China.

Fauci has consistently denied lying about those subjects.

Democratic senators described the proceeding as a politically motivated attempt to entrap a retired public servant.

More than 150 infectious-disease specialists and other scientists also signed a public letter rejecting the accusations against Fauci as unsupported.

Paul announced that the committee would vote the following week on whether to hold Fauci in contempt for refusing to answer its questions.

A committee referral would not itself amount to a criminal charge or conviction.

It would have to clear additional political and legal stages before the Justice Department could seek a prosecution.

Legal experts have also said that any case would raise unresolved questions about Fauci’s Fifth Amendment rights and the scope of the pardon President Joe Biden issued before leaving office in 2025.

Cohen did not attempt to resolve those complicated legal arguments during his late-night monologue.

Instead, he condemned what he saw as Republican senators using the hearing to humiliate and threaten an 85-year-old scientist.

Cohen said Fauci had spent the day being “grilled, berated and sworn at” over crimes that Republicans wanted the public to believe he had committed.

He then shifted attention away from the partisan conflict surrounding COVID-19 and toward the public-health career that preceded it.

Fauci joined the National Institutes of Health in 1968 and became director of NIAID in 1984.

He remained in that position for 38 years and advised seven American presidents on infectious diseases and public-health emergencies.

His work during the HIV/AIDS epidemic is particularly significant for LGBTQ+ audiences.

Fauci began studying the emerging illness shortly after the first cases among gay men were reported in 1981.

He conducted research that helped expand scientific understanding of HIV and later played a major role in changing how experimental treatments were developed and made available.

That history was not free from conflict or legitimate criticism.

During the epidemic’s devastating early years, activists accused federal health agencies of moving too slowly while gay men and others with AIDS were dying in enormous numbers.

ACT UP protested at the National Institutes of Health, while writer and activist Larry Kramer publicly attacked Fauci in exceptionally harsh terms.

Fauci eventually invited activists into discussions about clinical research and listened as they demanded a greater role for patients in decisions affecting their lives.

That evolving relationship helped change federal treatment research and the broader relationship between medical institutions and patient advocates.

Kramer and Fauci eventually became friends despite their years of confrontation.

Kramer later described Fauci as the only true and great hero among government officials responding to AIDS.

Cohen referenced that remarkable reversal while explaining why he believed Fauci deserved gratitude rather than abuse.

He also highlighted Fauci’s contribution to the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief.

Fauci was one of the principal architects of PEPFAR, which President George W. Bush launched in 2003 to expand HIV prevention and treatment internationally.

The United States government credits the program with saving approximately 26 million lives and enabling millions of babies to be born without HIV.

That record does not require viewers to believe that Fauci made no mistakes during COVID-19 or that questions about pandemic decisions should never be asked.

It does provide necessary context when politicians describe his entire career as one long exercise in dishonesty and abuse.

Cohen’s intervention was notable because direct political commentary remains relatively unusual on Watch What Happens Live.

The program is built around celebrity interviews, cocktails, games and the elaborate universe of Bravo reality television.

Cohen generally reserves more serious monologues for subjects that intersect strongly with his experiences as a gay man, a father or a New Yorker.

Fauci’s AIDS legacy placed this story directly within that territory.

Cohen argued that the United States faces urgent problems requiring serious leadership and that attacking science has become both dangerous and deeply unserious.

He ended by suggesting that politicians may resent doctors and scientists because those professions sometimes achieve something elected leaders repeatedly fail to accomplish.

They fix things.

For LGBTQ+ viewers who remember AIDS or live with the consequences of that history, Cohen’s message was simpler still: do not erase the people who eventually listened, changed and helped save lives.

📷 @bravowwhl

🎬 Prefer video? Subscribe to B-Gay on YouTube: https://youtube.com/@BGaycom

123...291Page 1 of 291