Talk:Drag queen/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Stereotypes

Some gay men believe that it only furthers negative stereotypes and does no good.

I don't think this viewpoint is restricted to gay men. However, it needs to be attributed to a named advocate, with a referenced quote. Martin 16:03 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

• With much due respect your comment only reflects your apparent lack of knowledge on the subject. What the statement belies is that within the gay community there is a quantity of vocal GLBT people who dislike the inclusion of Drag Queens (and all Transgendered people) with gays, lesbians and bisexuals. They feel that because of the flamboyant nature of Drag Queens their inclusion detracts from the message that gays are "like everyone else"; ergo they don't want them included in pride festivals, etc... This of course is just a reflection of internalized homophobia and self loathing, as well as a reaction to a conservative desire to shut out all homosexuals completely. So it's not so much a "named advocate" of not including drag queens in the gay community at large as it is a general feeling amongst a certian portion of the gay community that drag queens don't belong. I hope this helps you to understand the situation better. Pacian 08:09, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

To assert that no public figure ("named advocate") has made political criticisms of drag shows your own "apparent lack of knowledge on the subject", as Judith Butler (Gender Trouble 1990) quickly comes to mind and points to others. Hyacinth 00:34, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Drag and Transgender

2003

The bit about "Drag queens were formerly called transvestites." isn't quite correct, and what is said about transvestitism in the following sentences is very much misleading.
And I very moch doubt that the "Drag is best thought of as a hobby, profession, or art form rather than as a sexual orientation or gender identity." part is NPOV. Again, it's also not correct - for some people, Drag Queen is their gender identity. -- AlexR 21:27 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

You know, I sometimes wonder if transgender folks aren't deliberately making it difficult to write encyclopedia articles. Fit in your pidgeon-holes, damny you! ;-)

Good catch, Alex... :) Martin

Trying to define and classify a population whose sole criterion is based on non-traditional self-identifictaion is sometimes tricky isn't it? But this particular article has become a gigantic mess. The more it's edited, the worse it seems to get. Paige 15:23 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

2004

Isn't it funny - as of today we are having pretty much the same debate again. A person named "Exploding Boy" feels like putting pretty much the same stuff in again. Funny, isn't it. Still does not make his claims that Drag Queens and Kings are not transgendered, but gays and lesbinans only, any more correct. -- AlexR 16:15, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Transgendered and heterosexual people may do "drag," but a "drag queen" is a gay man who sometimes dresses as a woman, usually for fun or performance. Exploding Boy 22:03, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC) ETA: maybe the drag page needs expanding. EB.

I would also like to reiterate that too much useful information is being removed from this article. One example is the definition of transvestism. The layout keeps getting shuffled around as well, making it far less easy to read. Exploding Boy 22:18, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC)

The definition of transvestitism nowadays being used only for fetishistic transvestitism is simply false. And even if it were not, it does not belong here. The layout was simply put back to where it was before your edit, because it makes a lot more sense to voice "opinions" after it has been explained what the article is about. -- AlexR 22:38, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Can you please put a definition of transvestism here then? I think a definition is needed for contrast in the article. I'm starting to think as the Drag King article is fairly short that we need to merge Drag Queen and Drag King with redirects under a new page called Drag so that we can include all genders, sexual orientations and definitions comfortably. Exploding Boy 02:37, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)

Why don't you just look up transvestitism? And I don't think a definition is needed here, especially since there are several definitions, and not a single one of them could be called "the" right one. A link like compare transvestitism will do perfectly. I did a list in the German WP "List of transgender subjects" which also comes very handy. I'll probably do one for the English as well, there seems to be a need for it.
Also, merging Drag Kings and Drag Queens is a very bad idea, since both terms describe very different groups, so there can be no comfortable article that aims at explaining both at the same time. I don't see any reason to do so, either. It just might work if both were as narrowly defined as you seem to understand them (i.e. gays or lesbians in drag), however, since both are wider, and Drag King is much wider, it won't. (And an article that would "include all genders, sexual orientations (a different thing altogehter) and defintions" would have to have the size of a rather large book.)
A short article about "drag" might be a good idea, if you feel that it is needed, but please don't mess around with things you obviously don't understand too much about (as your edit of Drag King also showed). There are already several people who watch and edit the transgender articles, including this one, and we really have better things to do than constantly undoing rather clueless "improvements". Especially if parts of these "improvements" were already rejected a year ago. Maybe you just want to help, but throwing in old definitions and prejudices is not much help, really. -- AlexR 03:15, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If you're going to claim my definition is wrong the least you can do is provide your own for comparison. A definition of transvestism on this page is a good way to underscore the difference between drag queens and transvestites and make it clearer to those who might not know.

[AR] I told you to look at transvestitism, I happened to write that one. And I don't think there is any need to explicitly explain the differences between every form of cross-dressing or transgender in every article, because people are free to check the other articles and figure them out for themselfes. Not only would the articles become insufferable long, it is also often very difficult to figure out exactly the motives a particular persons behaviour; and that distance-o-mania some people feel like excercising is quite often not differentiating, but discriminating, and definitely violates the NPOV.

A single page on drag could easily and comfortably include sections on drag queens (still a short article) and kings (a very short article) and other people who do drag. Merging these topics under drag would solve the problem of people feeling they have to put in notes about every type of person who might do drag under both articles.

[AR] No, it can not. There are seperated pages Lesbian and Gay too, and they are there for a reason. For the same reason, Drag Kings and Queens are related, but quite different, and belong into seperate articles. Nothing wrong with an additional article Drag, though. And as far as the links are concerned, there is a List of gay-related topics and I already said I'd write a similar one for transgender subjects; that will solve the link problem.

A straight man who wears women's clothing may be in drag, but he's not a drag queen. A woman in women's clothing may be in drag but she's certainly not a drag queen (and someone has claimed in this article that women can be drag queens too). There are many people of all genders and sexual orientations who do drag, but only gay men are properly called drag queens.

[AR] No, you are wrong. Among people who are Drag Queens (not just man in drag) there are some who do not identify as "gay man". Some do self-identify as Drag Queens, and some Drag Queens self-identify as transgendered women. And some (although very few) women not only identify as Drag Queens, but look the part, too. And I don't care whether you have ever met any of those people or even heard of them, they do exist, and therefore ought to be in the article.

(Response to above) Yes, we do exist and have been going strong for years. We are forging into the age of 'pomosexualism' and gender performers should not be categorized by others based on a supposed sex or gender identification. Being a drag queen is a fine art. The purposes for creating art are infinite. Drag is the creation of a personna, the delivery of the aforementioned, and achieving a connective relationship with the audience and co-performers. An artist can paint on canvas or a public sidewalk- is the production less esthetically valuable depending on the specific surface upon which it has been painted? Moreover, being a drag queen is not about impersonating women, rather it is the attempt to incarnate an idea of high femininity. TK (UMN)

It's good to know that there are people who watch this and other articles, but if you don't have time to edit them for clarity and writing style, which they clearly need, then make your objections known, but don't try to stop others from improving them. Exploding Boy 03:35, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)

[AR] The article was clear, and I am sorry, but your edits were not improving them, but narrowing them down to your definition. And since your definition is simply wrong, because it does not cover the whole subject, it is hardly an improvement.

ETA: I'm also wondering why you chose to remove the following sentence rather than modify it if you felt that was necessary: By courtesy, most drag queens are usually referred to by their drag name or with the pronoun "she" while in drag, and dislike being called by their legal names while in costume. Drag performers protect their characters fiercely. EB

[AR] I removed it, because otherwise somebody else would have done. I had written several similar sentences into other transgender articles, and the only one, after some debate that remained in the article - unfortunately, in my own opinion too - was the one to check very carefully when using or encountering transvestitism. The argument goes something like "Wikipedia is not an usage guide" or similar. Put it in again, if you want to, but chances are, somebody else will take it out again. -- AlexR 10:55, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

I have attempted to combine both drag queen and drag king in a single article on drag. I haven't redirected these pages yet. Please take a look at the article and let me know what you think. Exploding Boy 08:50, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)

Once more, no. The first part makes a decent beginning for a drag article (but don't forget to link to cross-dressing!), but don't merge Drag King and Drag Queen into it. Why the hell do you insist so much in merging them, they are related, but different enough to need seperate articles. It's time you expand your horizon somewhat. -- AlexR 10:55, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

They are sufficiently related to be merged -- it's all drag! -- at least for now while there is little information in the individual articles (and there hasn't been any work on them for at least several months). The format works well because, once again, it's all drag, and having them together provides a good contrast and makes for a more complete, more informative, and easier to understand article, which even as it is still needs a lot of work. "Expand my horizon"? "Ridiculous"? Why? I disagree with your point of view but I have gone to fairly great pains to include it in -- actually, to integrate it into -- the article. I don't mind that you disagree with me, I respect your opinion, but your criticism is not constructive at all. I don't know how much you've edited it and this is not to criticise you personally, but you seem intent on keeping this article exactly as it is: incomplete, badly written and just generally not very good. What I'm trying to do is (a) make it more informative, (b) make it more complete, (c) make it more encyclopaedic, and (d) make it read better. Even a temporary redirect until someone takes the time to flesh out all three articles sufficiently that they can stand alone would be better. I really don't know why you object so strenuously, and I'd very much like to hear some other opinions. Exploding Boy 13:00, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)

I am getting a feeling that arguing with you is a rather pointless excercise, because you don't listen to what I say. Until you do, this is the last time I'll bother. Don't worry, though, I'll keep watching the pages.

• it's all drag! - No, once more, it is not. Particularly a Drag King can be anything from a female bodied, female identified (of any sexual orientation) person who wears a mousache for a party to what is often called a "non-op female-to-male transsexual". And Drag Queen can also be a gender identity, which is a bit different from "Drag".
• there is little information in the individual articles - And you tried to "improve" it by removing quite important infomation? Not to mention that until you came nobody complained about the articles being to short, either.
• actually, to integrate it your point of view into the article - By deleting it? Funny, my dictionary has a slightly different definition of integrating. And that's not just my point of view, either. If you had bothered to check the article's history you would have seen that several people edited that article, and obviously all but one (see top of page) agree with the definition that is given.
• Your points (a), (b), (c) and (d) somehow didn't work, because removing information is not making it more informative or more complete. Neither is it make it read better when you put the "opinions" part above the very definition about which these opinions are voiced; instead, it's confusing. And how can an article be more encyclopaedic if it has both less and false information in it?
• until someone takes the time to flesh out - There are several articles in the Wikipedia which could be improved; in fact, that probably applies to all articles. Throwing things together that don't fit together all that well is not a very common way of ensuring that articles are improved.

BTW, I did the List of transgender-related topics, that should solve the link problem. Maybe you should read through the articles before messing around any more. -- AlexR 15:51, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

..............

Okay, I've done a bit of a rewrite on this article, trying to address some concerns from both sides.

1. I believe the article should stay at drag queen, with drag king and drag (clothing) also both staying what they are. AR is correct in indicating that drag queens and drag kings, though related, are sufficiently different to have separate articles. Drag king-dom (as it were) is a particularly interesting and highly complex phenomenon. That drag king is short now means that it should be enlarged, not that it should be mashed into a single article on drag. Wikipedia is not paper.

I also very much regret that it is so difficult to get any Kings to do something in the Wikipedia; I begged several times for the German Wikipedia until somebody wrote an article. And while I know many Drag kings and a lot about them, I feel rather uncomfortable writing too much, because it is still so very shifting.
That's probably because the identity Drag King is so new; as with all identites, be it gay, lesbian, transsexual or transgender or whatever, there is inevitably a very introverted phase (a necessary one, too). Well, the WP will have to wait, but we don't have a deadline, after which nothing can be edited any more. -- AlexR 00:02, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

1. I don't think it's out of place to explain explicitly the difference between drag queens and transgendered women. It doesn't necessarily have to be verbose, but I think it needs to be there. It's true that a reader can click to another article, but remember, the other article is an encyclopedia article too. A person shouldn't be expected to wade through All About Transgendered People in order to find out what the difference is between transgendered people and drag queens, especially when they're already on the drag queen page.

I changed the bit about transvestitism, hope it's OK now. -- AlexR 00:02, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

1. The bit about calling drag queens "she" is not necessarily a dictionary thing; I regard it as an interesting fact (and have rewritten it slightly to better express this.) - Montréalais 22:12, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I find you exceedingly frustrating to work with because of your constant barbs; it's really not necessary. I can still see them only when you write them in the "summary" field, you know. It's not that I don't listen to what you say, it's that you rarely say anything constructive:

• re: "actually, to integrate it your point of view into the article " did you trouble to read the part on drag queens and kings in the [[drag (clothing) article? I strongly suspect that you didn't, or you would not have made this remark. My rewrite there was still more inclusive and better than the one that currently exists here, and I still may move it over.Exploding Boy 22:34, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)

I did see there were some minor differences, however, since it is and remains pointless to put it into the Drag article, you ought to make changes in the appropriate articles, that is Drag queen and Drag King. -- AlexR 00:02, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

OK, now we're getting somewhere. I thought you were objecting to that too. Exploding Boy 01:40, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)

Okay, to try and clarify the transgender issue in a simple way, transGENDER is a loose term and does not mean a permanent change. Meaning, anyone who crossdresses, is in drag, etc. for the time is transgender. TransSEXUAL is when you self-identify with the opposite gender and take means to become or act more like the other gender. Gender is a state of mind, sex is physical. In no show I have ever been in (I am a king), has the sexual orientation of the people in drag made a difference in what we call them. I have never heard of a queen only being a gay man. In fact, I have worked with straight and bisexual men in shows and we did not differentiate between them and the gay queens also in the show. LGBT people are working to end discrimination, why would we discriminate against people in shows?

Etymology

I was just wondering if the word "drag" was created by combining fag and something else?

Nope. I believe "drag" dates back to at least the 1870s^[1]. While it's possible that the word "faggot" was a new slang term for gay men back then (the earliest record of it was from the early 20th century, but it's hard to know exactly how long it was in use before then^(source)), your guess is good but is not supported by history. Another false etymology is that it stands for dressed as girl, but as Snopes.com says in its article about golf^[2], "only a few words have acronymic pedigrees, and those harken from the 20th century and later. Though terms that have been part of the English language for centuries may well have fascinating backstories (and many do), they won't have begun their linguistic lives as acronyms". The word "drab" is occasionally used to refer to cross-dressing males who aren't presently cross-dressed. This is a play on words, as it can corrolate to drag's false etymology by meaning "dressed as a boy", and is also a comment on how uninteresting, or drab, some people think male clothing is when compared to female clothing. I know this is way more than you asked for, but hey, I'm a geek :-) --Icarus 22:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Drag shows and venues

I wonder whether that should not get its own article, there is certainly the potential for an article on its own. Also, "Drag shows" are by no means done by drag queens alone, another reason to move it away from this article. Any other opinions? -- AlexR 15:03, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I wrote the section and I considered it, but I think it is more appropriate to keep it in the drag queen article for now. It is not really expansive enough to warrant a seperate article. Thanks for making it, as you put it, less "US-centric." I often do the same thing, especially in music-artist articles where people don't note their successes abroad, but you've caught my with my high heeled foot in my mouth. Pacian 04:41, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Cabaret Mado

I went for the first time to the Cabaret Mado, on november 2004, it was great. I am a young heterosexual girl and this was a first for me. I highly recommende it for every one, the Cabaret Mado on Ste Catharine Streets in Mtl.

Gotta agree with this one; it's my favourite club. - Montréalais 17:31, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Famous drag queens?

Am I the only one who thinks that the list of "famous" drag queens needs some pruning. For one thing, every red-linked name should be deleted (except probably Danny La Rue, who needs someone from the UK to do a good writeup on him). Some of the external links also need to be checked and pruned. gK ¿? 08:46, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Dump all the red links unless they're individually argued for (I've created a sub-stub for Danny La Rue). And let's get rid of Bugs Bunny too. --fvw* 13:47, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)

Drag and [[<a style='text-decoration: none; border-bottom: 3px double;' is used so often in cartoons and anime that it would be a HUGE list if one was created. Considering all the times that James in the Pokémon series cross-dresses, I am surprised that some Pokémon fan hasn't created a List of anime characters in drag or List of crossdressing anime characters. ;-) Thanx for creating the stub for Danny La Rue. The next step is probably to weed out the rest of the only locally (in)famous and then create a List of drag queens to put them in. gK ¿? 20:41, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have added "Olivia Jones", the most famous german Drag Queen to the list. I´ll write an article to go with it, as soon as I´ve time.

Cu, FreddyE (no signature, cause no user account. I normally don´t write anything in the english wikipedia)

Link removal

Aaron, can you explain what part of the Wikipedia external link policy you were thinking of when you removed all those external links? --Icarus 07:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

"Queer community" may be an acceptable term in some parts of the United States, but for most of a planet it is a term most gay and people do their damnest to avoid, finding it an absurd made-up PC term. (In fact the only time it is used in many parts of western Europe is among hard core left wing writers and among some academics, though even in academia many gay groups have complained about Queer Studies. So for an article to use a term that is almost exclusively associated with the left radical wing of the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered community, expecially when most members of the community worldwide find the term patronising at best, insulting at worst, is distinctly POV and unacceptable. FearÉIREANN 06:59 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

"Lesbigay"? That's lovely. So there are no drag queens among the transgendered community? - Montréalais

The word Queer is regarded with revulsion by many of the people I know in the gay community, as not merely a politically correct term but a term forced on the community by some activitists. If you can find a broadbased term, do so. But don't force a politically correct term that turns the stomach of many gay people outside the US and Canada and is seen as forced POV term created by a small unrepresentative group of left-wing activists as part of their politically correct gender stereotyping. FearÉIREANN 02:13 27 Jul 2003 (UTC) (who has been called a communist, a fascist, a homophobe etc on wiki but who happens to be a left wing gay man just back from a gay pub!) BTW agree with both Martin and AlexR down below. Given all the agendaising in this article, it badly needs a professional NPOVing. It is deeply flawed.

So what do you suggest? I wrote this article as a Montreal Queer, using the word Queer to mean what it means in this city. I'm not going to apologize for writing in the language I speak. If you believe it to be too POV, then rewrite it, but I don't see why transgendered people should be excluded just because you don't like the word that includes them. Don't just sit around casting aspersions rather than addressing the question I raised. - Montréalais

---

Link removal

Re: Wikipedia:External links.

Aaron, can you explain what part of the Wikipedia external link policy you were thinking of when you removed all those external links? --Icarus 07:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Sure, thanks for opening discussion!
These all fall under Wikipedia:External_links#What_should_not_be_linked_to point two:

• Screaming Queens Entertainment
• RuPaul
• House of Diabolique
• Trashique!
• Alex Serpa
• Queens for a Night: A documentary

And this one didn't meet Wikipedia:External_links#What_should_be_linked_to:

• Imperial Court System

brenneman^(t)(c) 07:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi, not sure what you're referring to as you link to a very long article about linking but the Imperial Court system is one the oldest and well-respected drag traditions in the world. Even if the website is a bit underwhelming. Benjiboi 04:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)