Jonathan van Ness hits back at 'rage' claims

Jonathan Van Ness hits back at 'rage' claims credit:Bang Showbiz
Jonathan Van Ness hits back at 'rage' claims credit:Bang Showbiz

Jonathan Van Ness has hit back at claims they had "rage issues" on the set of 'Queer Eye'.

The 37-year-old reality TV star - who is non-binary but uses all pronouns - was blasted as a "monster" in a Rolling Stone profile in March but Jonathan insists the report "isn’t really based in reality".

Speaking on the 'Table Manners With Jessie And Lennie Ware' podcast, Jonathan said: "There was this article that was written about 'Queer Eye' and myself in March, but our whole 'Queer Eye' family had first learned about this article in December.

"I went from this bankruptcy to then, oh, there’s someone who’s going to write an investigative takedown, like exposé piece about you that isn’t really based in reality, but can certainly have a lot of things taken out of context to like make you look as bad as possible.

“So from January to March, I was just walking on eggshells, being like, when is this going to happen? And then it did finally happen."

Jonathan said the article made them reevaluate where they were getting validation from.

Van Ness explained: "One thing it taught me was that I had been getting so much self-esteem from social and my job that I didn’t really think that I did get so much self-esteem from it

"I think a lot of people were like looking for a reason to hate me or like looking for a reason to be like, ‘See, I always knew that they were fake and this is the proof'.

"My family was so supportive, and my husband, and my team, but I didn’t even get on social media to look at my phone for like three weeks and anytime I tried to dip my toe in, I would immediately see something that was so intensely hurtful.

'I think people forget no matter how famous you are you’re still a person."

However, while Jonathan insisted the article was “overwhelmingly untrue” and allegedly done “in bad faith,” they admitted there were times when they “could have been better".

They added that much of the information was “taken out of context” to make them look “as bad as possible".