Here’s the tea: Drag is for Everyone
Our society has made overwhelming progress in terms of our LGBTQ+ acceptance, and In doing so, gay culture is making its way to the mainstream. One subculture on the front lines of mainstream acceptance is the art of gender performance, commonly known as drag.
With its increasing popularity there has been much debate surrounding who can perform as a drag queen. Originally drag was associated with men dressing as women as a means of performance, however with increasing gender equality, many queer women are eager to take part and take back their femininity.
Opinions on this issue vary, some like Jake Hall (2017) believe that drag isn’t exclusive to any group as anyone is capable of gender performance. Others like Tom Rasmussen (2016) insist that not only should all queer identities be accepted into the community, but that mainstream media like the reality television show Ru Paul’s Drag Race paint a biased picture as to what a drag queen is. While I agree with both arguments made, Hall effectively illustrates the current misunderstandings surrounding drag using emotional appeal and narration, while Rasmussen’s argument lacks credibility due to visible bias and uses difficult language that could prove to alienate some readers.
In “Why do some people want women to stop performing drag?”, an essay originally published in Dazed, Jake Hall (2017) argues that drag is not an exclusively male art form, and that queer women shouldn’t be excluded from artistically exploring their femininity.
Queer nightlife is still overwhelmingly male and has proven to not be a safe place for queer women to express themselves. Whether being sexually harassed by gay men or being differentiated from their cis-male counterparts as “bio” or “faux” queens, female bodied drag performers are continuously being criticized for participating.
Hall argues that the exclusion of female bodied queens is incredibly counterproductive, especially since the main purpose of drag is to mock and disrupt gender roles.
Preventing someone from participating because of their anatomy just reinforces these enforced gender roles drag is meant to question. Drag also allows women to “reclaim (their) femininity all while making a mockery of these (misogynistic) standards”(Amber Cadaverous (2017)).
In his essay “Why do some people want women to stop performing drag?”, Jake Hall (2017) makes effective use of narration to provoke emotional appeal. By introducing Amber Cadaverous (2017) as a relevant voice in the drag community, Hall gives the audience an inside perspective of the difficulties female queens face:
“I think a lot of the critique comes from the idea that queer women in femme drag are ‘straight-passing’, [….] They think we get to enjoy a rich culture without facing any of the oppression”(para. 8).
In this quotation, Cadaverous identifies the misconception a lot of gay men have surrounding female drag performers. They think that because these queens are performing as their assigned gender, it isn’t as subversive as a man dressing as a woman, and that these performers are able to enjoy the lavish lifestyle without facing any oppression. Cadaverous’s input is persuasive because this perspective overlooks the vast amount of oppression queer women face.
While like gay men they face homophobia for those they may choose to love, and the discrimination of not necessarily falling within the gender construct they were assigned, they also must face the misogyny that comes along with being a ‘woman’.
On top of all the outside oppression, when queer women go to express themselves in supposed ‘safe-spaces’ for gender expression, they receive backlash from their male counterparts for not performing as their opposite gender.
Unfortunately, most queer spaces are male-dominated, leaving queer women very little choice but to participate in these spaces that mistreat them.
While some may argue that queer women who perform femme drag aren’t as ‘subversive’ or lack the shock factor of their male counterparts, I argue that queer women actively taking part in these male-dominated spaces despite the backlash is just as if not more ‘subversive’.
In the essay “drag’s cis-male problem,” published in i-D Vice, Tom Rasmussen (2016) criticizes how non cis-male drag performers are barred from the community and the public’s perspective of the art form, reinforced by the popular reality show “RuPaul’s Drag Race.”
The reality show has provided a mainstream platform for gay men to inform and educate the public on LGBTQ+ awareness while providing recognition to the art form beyond all the stereotypes we have been exposed to for decades.
While RuPaul has by no doubt made a huge difference with his television show, Rasmussen argues that the show has failed to provide exposure and recognition for transgender, female, and non-binary drag performers to the public, which has in turn been damaging to the community.
It is well known within the community that Drag Race has so far (as of 2016) provided a platform exclusively to cis-male performers (with a few exceptions of those presenting themselves as cis-male to be on the show). When it was brought to the attention of RuPaul, his response was more than discouraging, responding that women who wish to participate in the show can submit their applications to Miss Universe instead.
As a well-respected member of the LGBTQ+ community, RuPaul’s exclusion de-validates so many performers, clouds the public’s perception of what a drag queen is, and prevents these performers the ability to express their art and gain success.
Tom Rasmussen’s (2016) essay lacks credibility due to visible bias and use of difficult and controversial language that could prove to alienate some readers.
To someone familiar with gender politics, Rasmussen makes a convincing argument. However, if not presented to the right audience, it proves to be a difficult read:
“Yet again cis-men win out. If RuPaul is the gatekeeper to mainstream drag recognition, this view means that men get to be celebrated in a queer and artistic way in the mainstream for their impersonation of the female gender, while women only have one option for the exploration of their own gender in mainstream space — which is the incredibly misogynist, archaic world of Miss Universe.” (para.6)
In this quotation, Rasmussen argues that RuPaul’s tight stance provides opportunity and recognition to cis-male performers, while female performers are only left with the less favorable option of Miss Universe.
Off the bat, Rasmussen makes an accusation against cis-men, and while it’s a valid accusation, it could cause the reader to become defensive. While Both Rasmussen and Hall share similar opinions on the topic, Hall refrains from making strong accusations and maintains a less biased position on the topic while providing facts to make his arguments.
In addition, Rasmussen fails to provide a proper source for Ru Paul’s Tweet, and while it is a real tweet, failing to include it in the article could further harm Rasmussen’s credibility.
Although some may argue that Rasmussen’s essay is intended for an audience familiar with gender politics, I contend that a writer should strive to make an essay that can inform the public on the issue and how they can improve.
I look forward to when we can have a respectful, progressive conversation surrounding these issues and have articles like Rasmussen’s without causing controversy. However, it would be foolish to disregard that the article may turn many readers away from the issue.
While both essays provide reliable insight into what it means to be a drag queen and who should be allowed to take part, Hall effectively uses emotional appeal and narration to identify the current misunderstandings surrounding drag, while Rasmussen’s argument lacks credibility due to visible bias and uses difficult language that could prove to alienate some readers.
Of the two articles, I find Jake Hall’s “Why do some people want to stop women performing drag?” to be a more effective persuasion as it addresses the issue without invoking any possible hostility from the reader, and providing a fresh perspective to someone who may go into the article opposed.
