Talk:Drag queen/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Drag Queen Story Hour

How about mentioning the Drag Queen Story Hours held at libraries all around the United States in which drag queen read books promoting drag queens and LGBT to young children (maybe yours)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.82.67.75 (talk) 03:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Your suggestion is rather brief; can you elaborate? Why do you think this would be an improvement to the article, and have you checked if there are enough reliable sources about this in order to add something? We would also have to consider WP:DUEWEIGHT, and I don't know how much notice this has had in the press, and whether it rates a mention in the article or not. Mathglot (talk) 07:18, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't know how more elaboration is possible. As for why this would be an improvement to the article, it helps make the article complete in it's informative nature, as the site intends. Here is a super reliable source- the program's own website: https://www.dragqueenstoryhour.org/. It may not be in "acceptable" press coverage because many people would no doubt be outraged by the program. Hey, how about this site that shows how much the program's people really care enough about children when it comes to making sure who they accept and send out as story readers: https://www.khou.com/article/news/local/houston-public-library-admits-registered-child-sex-offender-read-to-kids-in-drag-queen-storytime/285-becf3a0d-56c5-4f3c-96df-add07bbd002a — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.82.67.75 (talk) 22:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

It seems that using a website self-published by the subjects of that section may be unacceptable per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources. Someone more acquainted with the application of these guidelines can correct me if I'm wrong though. As for the other link, how relevant is it to the content of the article? It seems like a single incident of grave carelessness on the part of the authorities that was dealt with accordingly. Again, I might be wrong on this, so someone more knowledgeable can correct me. Liberscriptus19 (talk) 02:52, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

This is undoubtedly relevant and covered in reliable sources. This whole article has clean-up issues, DQSH is just a recent one. Gleeanon409 (talk) 09:51, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Photo replacement and request for COI info

Mathglot has asked I respond to possible conflict of interest issues for adding photos to articles relating to Gillette, Wyoming. I don't work for the city, no one pays me to edit, and I gain nothing from it other than knowledge and experience. Also, I have no connection to the person in the photo or the groups that hosted the event. The only relationship I to the content I contribute to Wikipedia wether its written text, data, or photos is I created it. If that addresses all the COI concerns please restore the edit [1] Old revision of Drag queen. Mr. Satterly (talk) 00:54, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for responding here. Since both discusssions are identical starting out, rather than fragmenting the discussion by having people respond in two places, let's unify them at one article, and gather any or all responses there. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:10, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:Gay pride § Photo replacement and request for COI info

Women dressing in women's clothing?

"Wow! Who knew?!" - It would be nice if the first sentence in the lead made sense. I've tried to fix it now. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

See faux queens. Armadillopteryx^talk 01:00, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Don't need to. Women "dress in women's clothing" without that being notable or relevant in any way whatsoever. That's what I was reacting to, nothing else. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 07:53, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I thought your initial edit to the first sentence in the lead was fine, but it was grammatically incorrect without the comma I added. The comma was not superfluous, as you said here. The phrase "usually men" in this case is classified as an interrupter and is to be offset with a comma at each end as a rule. The latest version of the lead is okay grammatically, but I find it semantically inferior to the previous version, which presented all integral parts of the definition of drag queen in the first sentence. The fact that drag queens wear women's clothing is even more fundamental than the fact that most of them are men, so if we are to keep this broken into two sentences, I think we ought to switch the order. But honestly, I think the best version is the one that was there already—with both commas. Armadillopteryx^talk 16:09, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Pointing out that women wear women's clothing is sub-par language, no matter how it's phrased and no matter what context. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:32, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that [p]ointing out that women wear women's clothing is what is actually happening in that sentence, though. The sentence defines a drag queen as a person who performs in women's clothing, with the added context that such performers as usually (but not exclusively) men. If we were discussing a sentence that literally read, Women wear women's clothing, I would probably agree with you. I will respond further in the new section below. Armadillopteryx^talk 03:31, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Are all drag queens "performance artists" ...

... or only those that are performance artists? And who says so? Maybe someday we'll land with a lead that's accurate and acceptable. This is still a major problem. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:32, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I think we can work together to come up with a better lead sentence than what is there now. Here are two ideas:

1. A drag queen is a performer, usually male, who dresses in women's clothing for the purpose of entertainment.
2. A drag queen is a person, usually male, who dresses in women's clothing for the purpose of entertainment.

What do you think of these options? Do you have any suggestions?

As an added comment, I think that the the sentence should use the singular ("drag queen") as opposed to the plural ("drag queens") since the article title is singular, and it is not impractical or grammatically cumbersome to make the lead sentence match. Armadillopteryx^talk 03:36, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

How many women are drag queens? Do you know? Generally, I oppose mentioning the women in the lead, because as far as I know they are a miniscule and dubiously noteworthy minority, ergo: not lead material. OK to mention them in the article. Why not account for them in a separate subheading - well sourced! - under the heading "Terminology, scope and etymology". Now, though, the opening text there says that women cannot be drag queens. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure how useful it is to count drag queens of any gender; I couldn't tell you how many faux queens there are in the world any more than I could tell you how many male or non-binary drag queens there are in the world. I do think it's historically and culturally relevant to state that the majority of drag queens are men, as is reflected in my suggestion. The number of female queens is certainly non-negligible, at the very least, since that demographic does have its own article here. As you say, I think it's also appropriate to discuss female queens with sourcing in the text. I think it's inaccurate for the lead to imply that drag queens are exclusively men.

Did you like either of my sentence proposals? Do you have one of your own? Armadillopteryx^talk 10:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Some mainstream news articles about bioqueens: [2][3][4][5][6][7][8] Armadillopteryx^talk 11:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

The lead, in my opinion, does not need to mention a fringe phenomenon of any kind. It also does not need to establish any heretofore unsourced assertion that any women actually are called (quote) "drag queens" (end of quote). If it does either, it needs to be worded so that the English does not clearly differentiate between men who wear female cloting and women who wear female cloting so that that the latter item, directly or indirectly, does not make Wikipedia look utterly ridiculous. I am sorry that I have not managed to make my opinion clear enough on that point: we must not write anything that in any way means that women wear women's clothing, no matter what the context, and no matter how roundabout. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:06, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

You call female queens a "fringe phenomenon", but while they are undboubtedly smaller in number than their male counterparts, they are fairly widely spread and accepted within the drag community. I understand that people who do not pay much attention to drag probably do not know or think about that much. This is precisely why Wikipedia should report accurate, up-to-date, well sourced information about the subject, both in the lead and in the body of the article. This article is outdated in many ways, IMO.

Here are a couple more articles about the push-back that RuPaul got last year for putting forth the presently controversial claim that (cis or trans) women cannot be considered drag queens: [9][10]

I don't think that the statement we must not write anything that in any way means that women wear women's clothing, no matter what the context, and no matter how roundabout is an accurate reflection of the sentences I am proposing. Could you explain to me why this is your reading? I mean that with full respect and sincerity: I think you and I are reading the same exact sentences with very different interpretations, and I am having some trouble seeing where you are coming from.

I have posted at WikiProject LGBT studies and WikiProject RuPaul's Drag Race to request further input. Armadillopteryx^talk 19:31, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

"a performer, usually male, who dresses in women's clothing" clearly implies that performers who are not male also dress in women's clothing. I'm sorry to see that you do not acknowledge that. I have not been able to check all the souirces you are giving now on this page. If any one of them is mainsteam and clearly asserts that many women are called "drag queens" (nothing else but that, please), add it to the lead and we'll go from there with trying to solve the wording. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, my point exactly is that performers who are not male also do drag (which, by definition, is done in women's clothing). That's a little different from saying something as unhelpful and obvious as women wear women's clothing, which has been a paraphrase you presented earlier. Perhaps the key is that I see an important semantic distinction between Some drag queens are women and Women wear women's clothing, whereas you do not. Would that be an accurate statement?

The very first link I posted (from Bustle) contains the phrase "female drag queens" in its headline. A Google search of "female drag queen" (in quotes) returns 31,500 results, many of which are WP:RS. [11] If you search "bioqueen", "faux queen" and "diva queen", you will see tens of thousands more results. I have to step away from the computer now, but in a few hours I can draft some new lead sentences and link a source or two after them, if you'd like to take a look. Armadillopteryx^talk 19:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

OK, but the wording "a performer, usually male, who dresses in women's clothing" clearly implies that performers who are not male also dress in women's clothing. Your reinterpreting that to infer that "dresses in women's clothing" actually means are drag queens is not helpful. Readers are not mind readers and need clarity. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:08, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I think(?) we agree on the fact that "dresses in women's clothing" should not be used as an equivalent for "is a drag queen", and therefore I think that a complete rewording of the lead sentence (and honestly the whole lead) is probably ideal. My suggestions above were meant as improvements on the existing wording, but I am all in favor of scrapping that language entirely. Armadillopteryx^talk 00:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Here is a nice article in Nylon that addresses the very question we're asking—i.e. how to define drag in the modern age—and also includes specific discussion of female drag queens. It offers these three definitions as examples:

1. "[Drag is] a genre of performance delivered in the medium of gender."
2. "[Drag is the use of] costume [to exaggerate] gender signifiers."
3. "[Drag is] a form of entertainment in which a performer 'assumes a theatrical guise of maleness, femaleness, in-between-ness, [or] none-of-the-above-ness in and for a performance.'"

Do you think any of those is a good place for us to begin or adapt our definition of "drag queen" in this article? I am partial to #2 myself. It adapts smoothly into something like A drag queen is a person/artist/performer who uses costume and makeup to exaggerate gender signifiers. Historically, most drag queens have been men dressing as women. Obviously we have to clean it up so that it's not such close paraphrasing, but this is just an idea to start. Armadillopteryx^talk 02:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Good ideas. Suggested first 2 sentences:

• A drag queen is a person who uses women's costuming and make-up to imitate and often exaggerate traditionally female gender signifiers. Historically, most drag queens have been men dressing as women for entertainment purposes. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:51, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I like your suggestion a lot. I think that we can drop the word "women's" before "costuming", since by the end of the sentence, it is unambiguous that the costuming is used to make the wearer look more feminine. It feels a little redundant. So my suggestion, from yours, is A drag queen is a person who uses costuming and make-up to imitate and often exaggerate traditionally female gender signifiers. Historically, most drag queens have been men dressing as women for entertainment purposes.

Does that still sound good to you? Armadillopteryx^talk 22:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Go for it! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

SergeWoodzing, reverting my edit was petty, demonstrates ownership issues, and made the prose worse. And re-added an ugly citation needed flag in the opening sentence which is a red flag to all that writing needs help. Sobeit, I had improved the lead as such

Drag queens are performance artists who dress in women's clothing and often act with exaggerated femininity, and in feminine gender roles primarily to entertain. They often exaggerate make-up and their drag to dramatic, comedic or satirical effect. Drag queens are closely associated with gay men and gay culture, although queens can be of any gender and sexuality.

I hope other editors are treated better than I was. Gleeanon409 (talk) 09:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@Gleeanon409 and SergeWoodzing: I have reverted the article to the version that was present throughout the discussion on the lead sentences on this talk page, since we (I believe) only just reached consensus on what changes are to be made. Gleeanon, you are more than welcome to offer input here. The version of (the first two sentences of) the lead we had agreed on right around the time of your first edit is A drag queen is a person who uses costuming and make-up to imitate and often exaggerate traditionally female gender signifiers. Historically, most drag queens have been men dressing as women for entertainment purposes. This addresses your concern about the citation needed tag that we would all like to see removed. What do you think of this version? I am personally happy with it and would like to put it in the article. Armadillopteryx^talk 21:47, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

First off, I think reverting the edit on the image caption(!), which has nothing to do with the lead sentences, was another bit of gatekeeping. It made the description poorer, more vague, and less helpful to readers. If this is how editing on this article has progressed it’s little wonder what a mess is here.

Secondly, I prefer “Drag queens are closely associated with gay men and gay culture, although queens can be of any gender and sexuality.” It handles the issues of gender and sexuality of queens in one efficient go.

I would amend the first sentence to A drag queen is a person using costuming and make-up to imitate, and often exaggerate, traditionally female gender signifiers and gender roles for entertainment purposes. Gleeanon409 (talk) 00:58, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I am not against improving the caption (or any other part of the article, in fact). I don't think anyone here is interested in gatekeeping the article. Speaking only for myself, I find the article to be of overall low quality and think that it would seriously benefit from a near-total rewrite. I don't have the time or will to commit to that undertaking myself, but I am all for improvements made by anyone. That said, whether a given edit is an improvement or not is subjective, and it's something we can talk about. I reverted to the stable version (which, incidentally, is a version I strongly dislike) because I think we should come to agreement on this talk page before making further changes.

If you read this discussion from the top, you will see that over the course of several days, SergeWoodzing and I got from a point of near-total disagreement to a consensus that your edits to the lead disregarded. That isn't appropriate behavior when a discussion is underway. Nevertheless, it in no way means that your input and edits are not welcome. You and I see each other around a lot on Drag Race articles, and I think you have done a fantastic job with Yvie Oddly, all the DragCon-related articles, and others. I think you have a lot of good to contribute here, too. Please just be respectful of the process we are going through to reach consensus before making unilateral changes.

As for the first sentence, I like your suggestion but prefer the following wording: A drag queen is a person who uses costuming and make-up to imitate and often exaggerate female gender signifiers and gender roles for entertainment purposes.

I would not object to incorporating your second sentence in some way like this: A drag queen is a person who uses costuming and make-up to imitate and often exaggerate female gender signifiers and gender roles for entertainment purposes. Historically, most drag queens have been men dressing as women. In modern times, female drag is associated with gay men and gay culture, but people of other gender and sexual identities also perform as drag queens.

What do you (both) think of that? Armadillopteryx^talk 02:37, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

There remains zero reason to lock down even the present poor version of the lead or article. Reverting the caption was unneeded, it only served to alienate me. It had *nothing* to do with this discussion.

For the lead sentences I would switch out costuming for drag (clothing).

Then I would support In modern times, drag queens are associated with gay men and gay culture, although queens can be of any gender and sexual identity. Until the entire article is overhauled and the lead expanded I see no reason not to explicitly state these facts upfront and in context. Gleeanon409 (talk) 04:09, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

 Fixed top of lead now. Thank you both! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, thank you both! I think we ended up with a really nice result. Big improvement over what it was! Armadillopteryx^talk 17:19, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I think the wording you implemented is good; it scopes the article in a way that reflects what the body covers, per LEAD (i.e. without excluding trans- or bio-queens), and addresses the issue raised towards the start of this section. :) The first sentence is perhaps a bit more vague now than the first sentences of many other articles, but taken together with the other two sentences that make up the first paragraph, it's a good summary. The wording of the second paragraph is a bit awkward, though: it seems clumsy to me to say "The activity, which is called doing drag, has many motivations, ..." without having previously mentioned an "activity" in so many words, but only "a person". What about rephrasing that sentence along the lines of "The activity of doing drag has many motivations, ..."? -sche (talk) 21:07, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

... for entertainment purposes.

What I especially like about that smooth wording is the fact (as per my rather vast experience) that a drag queen always can be considered to be in the act of entertaining, usually others, but in any case h-self. Thanx again! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:30, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

A few other thoughts about the lead

I've made some clarity edits to the whole lead, and there are a couple parts I think could benefit from some brainstorming:

• Right now, the last sentence of the lead begins, Drag queens vary by type, culture, and dedication ..., but what on earth does that actually mean? Drag queens vary by "type", but nowhere is type of what specified. And what does it mean for a drag queen (as opposed to drag, i.e. as an art form) to vary by culture? I think this sentence could use some TLC (if not WP:TNT) :-D
• I tried to improve the third sentence of the second paragraph, but I'm still not very happy with it—mainly because both the old version and the current one use the phrase venues such as cabarets and nightclubs. However, a cabaret is a type of show, not a venue, so I'm thinking something like this may be better: Drag shows frequently include lip-syncing, live singing, and dancing. They occur at events like gay pride parades, drag pageants, and cabarets; these can be hosted outdoors or in venues such as nightclubs and theatres.

Thoughts? Armadillopteryx^talk 02:32, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I have to state that I'm not liking that vague lead sentence. Drag queens are usually men, which is covered by various WP:Reliable sources, and this should be covered in the very first sentence per WP:Lead sentence and WP:Due. This is not something we should be compromising on simply because of the minority who aren't men. If the lead sentence is to stay that way, I will start an WP:RfC on this and present academic sources on the matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:08, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I realize that my initial comment may come across a little strong. So let me try again: What I mean is that we should let readers know from the very first sentence that drag queens are usually men. This isn't just a "traditionally" matter, just like drag kings usually being women isn't just a "traditionally" matter. There is obviously room to talk about "[drag] queens [who] can be of any gender and sexual identity," as the lead tells us, but this doesn't mean that the lead sentence prioritize the usual definition/most common occurrence. And opinion pieces/other media sources noting that drag queens of today can be of any gender and sexual identity doesn't change that fact. Editors' complaints on talk pages about us starting off the lead with the primary/usual meaning should not factor into how we relay the lead sentence since we are supposed to follow the literature with due weight. We aren't supposed to go by editors' personal opinions/preferences on matters such as these, not even as compromises. The compromise in this case doesn't even state that most drags are men or that drag queens are usually men. It speaks of "historically" and are "associated with," which is a roundabout way of stating that drag queens are usually men. It's also redundant, except for the "gay men and gay culture" part. Why a need to state that both historically and in modern times, drag queens are more so associated with men? I just can't agree to that lead sentence, unless "usually a man" or "usually men" is there. I watched the back and forth editing on this matter, but I didn't pay attention to this discussion. If I had, I obviously would have objected to this route. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:01, 8 November 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:13, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I do not mind whether we first mention that most drag queens are men in the first or second sentence. I only oppose any sentence that implies drag queens are or were exclusively men, since that is a false statement. Numerous WP:RS that are not opinion pieces clarify that. I linked a few earlier in the discussion and could easily provide more. I haven't yet dug through academic databases but could do so soon. I think the subject of non-male queens can be treated with due weight and adequate sourcing in this article.

Why not throw in a qualifier like this to the first sentence? A drag queen is a person, usually male, who uses drag clothing and makeup to imitate and often exaggerate female gender signifiers and gender roles for entertainment purposes. We could possibly even scrap the second sentence altogether if we do this.

Feel free to start an RfC. As I said earlier, I find the quality of this article to be quite poor in general. If someone is able to commit meaningfully to improving this level-5 vital article, that would be a good thing. Armadillopteryx^talk 07:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Armadilloptery, yes, thanks. I understand where you are coming from. I'm obviously fine going with "usually male," but I've seen a few of Gleeanon409's edits, and this is why I brought up an RfC. I'd rather avoid an RfC, though. It lasts for a month unless closed earlier due to consensus and can unnecessarily drag out a matter (no pun intended). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:29, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Exclusive of the question about performance, the wording almost always male seems uncontroversial. Even if it isn’t, it’s the stable version, and per WP:BRD should remain while this is being discussed. I’ve restored that wording. Mathglot (talk) 02:52, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

With all due respect (no pun intended!) I think it is WP:UNDUE to use an emphatic phrase like "almost always" instead of something more neutral like "usually". The role of trans women (as opposed to cisgender men) in the drag community has been somewhat inconsistently documented throughout history, with some of those women at times self-identifying as drag queens, some starting out as drag queens but abandoning that name later on, and others clear that that title never suited them. Though there are undoubtedly fewer non-male drag queens than male drag queens, the former are hardly a negligible minority, and our writing should not suggest they are. I think we all agree that we should strive to be as accurate as possible. It is not straightforward to quantify that longstanding sub-population of drag queens even from RS, especially older RS authored by outsiders who may not have cared about that detail in their work. Furthermore, cisgender female queens have become much more commonplace in recent years. I am in the middle of something at the moment, but yes, I can dig out sourcing for this to incorporate into the article.

I am totally in support of a phrase like "usually men" or "usually male" to describe the largest demographic in the drag queen community, but "almost always" is overly emphatic (and difficult to quantity—where do we draw the line for "almost always" anyway?). I think the present wording unduly paints non-male queens as some kind of exception rather than simply a minority in the community.

TL;DR: I support the sentiment but oppose the specific language of this edit. Armadillopteryx^talk 03:42, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

@Armadillopteryx:, the wording almost always was not mine, although I happen to agree with it. If they were my words, I would say that they were not chosen for emphasis, but for accuracy. The word usually seems inaccurate to me. In my region, the number of faux queens is vanishingly small compared to males. So small, as to be a tiny minority, and according to WP:DUE, needn’t be mentioned in the lead at all. If you can render “almost always” in words that seem more appropriate, or if you disagree with my reading of the ratio, please provide your suggestion or arguments. Mathglot (talk) 04:10, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

@Mathglot: In my two necks of the woods (I live part-time in two major cities in two different countries, and I frequent the drag scenes in both), female queens are a minority—but not a vanishingly small one in either place. In one of those places, I would estimate prevalence of female queens (cis and trans) at around 10%, and in the other, up to 20%. I am not sure if formal statistics exist for the purpose of sourcing, though I hope we can find some.

Within the (global) drag community, inclusion (and exclusion) of trans/female/non-binary/etc. queens is a delicate, contentious issue that has received wide coverage in recent years. Here are a couple quick sources: [12][13][14][15]. RuPaul was (and still is) in hot water for suggesting publicly that female/trans people cannot be drag queens last year [16]. (There are dozens of articles about that incident; I just grabbed one.) Miss'd America, a national drag pageant in the US, is presently mired in controversy over changing its rules to allow only biological males to compete (previously, trans women were welcome, and some even won the pageant) [17][18].

Examples of notable trans women who identify and perform as drag queens: Jiggly Caliente, Peppermint, Gia Gunn, Monica Beverly Hillz.

Examples of non-binary people who identify and perform as drag queens: Sasha Velour, Eureka O'Hara, Adore Delano, Courtney Act, Violet Chachki, Jinkx Monsoon, Shea Couleé, Yuhua Hamasaki. Regardless of biological sex, non-binary people do not identify as male or female, and it is Wikipedia policy to respect this self-designation (see MOS:GENDERID and WP:NONBINARY). As such, the non-negligible portion of male-bodied queens who are not male in gender need to also be taken into account when making statements about how many drag queens are specifically male.

I think we need to treat this subject with sensitivity and accuracy, and from my point of view, "almost always" goes too far, while "usually" is about right. Armadillopteryx^talk 04:19, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

"Usually" and "almost always" are considered synonyms (as shown by Google), but "almost always" does come across as more extreme. We should simply go with "usually." As for MOS:GENDERID, that mainly applies to biographies, not to general writing about non-binary people. It also applies to "Referring to the person in other articles." WP:NONBINARY is an essay, but speaks of the MOS:BIRTHNAME and MOS:GENDERID guidelines. And non-binary people may identify as male or female (or by gendered pronouns) at times, as noted in the Non-binary gender article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:55, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn, I pretty much agree with everything you've said. The main reason I brought up non-binary queens is just to point out that they also fall into the category of non-male drag queens, meaning that that group contains more members than just the cis and trans female queens that have been the focus of our discussion so far. You're right that per the Non-binary gender article, some genderfluid people identify as male or female at times, but other types of non-binary people, namely agender and demigender people, never identify as male or female people even if they use gendered pronouns. I know that MOS:GENDERID, WP:NONBINARY and MOS:BIRTHNAME mainly treat explicit mention of individuals, but I think the spirit of those guidelines and essays would clearly discourage grouping non-binary drag queens of any chromosome configuration under the umbrella of male drag queens. This is just to provide further context for why I think saying that queens are almost always men suggests that the subset of queens who are non-male is smaller than it really is. Armadillopteryx^talk 09:23, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

What, specifically, is and is not a "drag queen"?

To me the main question for the lead is not if many women have acts that resemble/emulate/glorify/celebrate drag queens, which of course they do, but whether or not many women specifically are called "drag queens" (note, and I quote "drag queens" - end of quote). I have been asking for that speific question to be clearly addressed here, and unless it is, I will continue to be confused about that. If there are mainstream reliable sources that substantiate that women often are called (quote) "drag queens" they shoud be added to the article. If none exist, this discussion seems moot. We are just trying to define, in the opening of the aricle, what a (quote) "drag queen" actually is. Aren't we? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:09, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Women who perform in drag are called drag queens, and we did address this earlier—I'm a little puzzled that you've asked the same question again. I linked several sources in our earlier discussion that refer to women as "drag queens", and it appeared you had acknowledged them. Would you like some more sources? I'm happy to post as many or as few as you request (within reason).

Female drag queens perform alongside male drag queens in the same shows, do the same kinds of performances, prepare their bodies (not just their faces) the same way (binding, brow blocking, waist cinching), and they are not referred to by any name other than "drag queen" or (simply "queen") at a performance. In fact, the only time I have ever heard anyone use a term like "bioqueen" has been in the news or when someone outside the drag community is attempting to understand or comment on them. And even then, terms like "faux queen", "bioqueen", "ladyqueen", etc. are used to refer to the subset of drag queens who are female, but these are not terms used in lieu of "drag queen" to describe that demographic. Armadillopteryx^talk 20:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Here, again, are the first seven sources I linked above that talk about female drag queens, this time complete with a quotation of the first (of usually many) times the term "drag queen" is used to refer to a woman in each article:

• [19] "13 Female Drag Queens To Follow On Instagram & Bask In The Glow Of Their Fierceness — PHOTOS" (headline)
• [20] "Woman, dominatrix and drag queen, Holestar started back in 2003 ..."
• [21] "These Trans and Cis Female Drag Queens Have Some WORDS for RuPaul" (headline)
• [22] "Felicia admits she was hesitant to send in an audition tape for Drag Race Thailand since she was still a 'baby drag queen.'"
• [23] "These Female Drag Queens Don’t Give A Tuck If You Think They’re Appropriating Gay Culture" (headline)
• [24] "Vicky lives a double life. By day, she’s a girl. By night, she’s a queen. A drag queen, that is."
• [25] "News 12 got a behind-the-scene look at how Victoria, a woman who has been performing as a drag queen for the past year, transforms into Vicky Deville."

Let me know if you'd like me to repeat the rest or introduce some new ones. Armadillopteryx^talk 21:14, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

(Just as a side note, I want to clarify that I do not intend my above comment to come off with any sort of hostility—I was a little frustrated when I read that (it appears to me) you didn't acknowledge that this matter was addressed, but I am not frustrated with you personally and do very much appreciate how civil, collaborative and productive our discussion has been this whole time.) Armadillopteryx^talk 22:34, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience! Key in my little bolded ditty above is the word "many". Which of your sources belongs in the article as a mainstream substantiation that many women are called (quote) "drag queens" or that there are "many female drag queens"?

I am not sure I agree the threshold for acknowledgment of female (or better: all non-male) drag queens in our basic definition should be that there are "many" rather than just "a perceptibly large amount", nor is it clear where the threshold for "many" actually lies—that's fairly subjective, after all. But for the record (based only in personal experience and my own sense of the word many), I do think it is accurate to say that there are many female drag queens.

Here are a couple sources that speak directly to the size the non-male drag population. The first one explicitly uses the word many, as you've requested—and I should think the source, Psychology Today, is suitably mainstream. As a note, I specifically say the non-male drag population because non-binary drag performers are also common and are also excluded by the implication that "most" or "almost all" drag queens are men. I also say say non-male because many sources that discuss female queens actually only refer to cisgender female queens and not transgender female queens, who are even more common: some trans women take the first steps into their transition by doing drag, and many continue to perform as drag queens even after legally and medically becoming female, at which point they are female both in and out of drag (see examples linked above). Others still transition and then take up drag much as a cisgender female might.

Here are the sourced quotes I mentioned:

• A 2018 article in Psychology Today says, Drag queens, otherwise known as 'female impersonators,' are most typically gay cisgender men (though there are many drag queens of varying sexual orientations and gender identities) who perform and entertain on stage in nightclubs and bars. [26]
• An August 2019 article in the Dallas Observer say, The art of drag is no longer exclusive to men. Drag is for everyone, including biological women. The tradition defining a drag queen as a man who dresses up in women's clothes, typically for the purposes of entertainment, is changing rapidly in Dallas. It later says, While each performer may prefer a different title, there seems to be a consensus that, above all, female queens are drag queens. [27]

I think one frustration we all probably share is that there do not appear to be any rigorous scientific studies or even exhaustive surveys of the non-male drag queen population size. I wish we had concrete statistics to look at here (gosh, that would make this so much easier!), but since we don't, I think the two best tools we have to look at are:

1. Prevalence of coverage of non-male queens in the media.
2. The general consensus established by the drag community on what the definition of a drag queen is (and who is included in it). I think it is reasonable to say that people who are lifelong drag queens and/or work and exist within the drag community, broadly construed, are the most knowledgeable and expert people there are on this subject—so documentation of their current consensus is fundamental to consider.

Speaking to the first point, I've already linked one to two dozen mainstream news articles that talk about female drag queens (as a collective entity and also with coverage of individual performers), and as mentioned earlier, a Google search for "female drag queen" gets tens of thousands of hits, many of which are news articles and other WP:RS. I can link more, but my main argument here is simply that this coverage is widespread and frequent, which I do not believe we disagree on. If non-male queens could be accurately described as a "fringe phenomenon", they would receive orders of magnitude less coverage.

Speaking to the second point, articles like these [28][29][30][31][32][33] make it clear that extending the definition of a drag queen only to cisgender men has fallen out of favor within the drag community and is not the present consensus among drag queens—or even the LGBT community as a whole. Here is a nice article in Slate, written by a globally prominent (male) drag queen, Miz Cracker, about the place, prevalence and legitimacy of female queens in the drag community.

I think it is really important to consider that if the people who are most knowledgeable about drag in the world do not restrict the definition of drag queen to a single gender, neither should we. This definition, like many others, has evolved over time, and it is our job to write a well sourced, up-to-date article on the subject—starting from the very first sentence. Armadillopteryx^talk 04:02, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

SergeWoodzing, given the arguments about "usually" vs. "almost always" in the #A few other thoughts about the lead section above, I really don't see the need for this revert and re-adding "almost always." What reliable sources state "almost always"? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:10, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

The only reason being that we (all) wait for consensus before making changes. That's in my edit summary.

Aside from any and all of our personal expertise & opinions (which as you all know are irrelevant on this page), why doesn't someone go ahead & add a mainstream reliable reference to the article text to very clearly and specifically substantiate the fact that there are (quote, preferably) "many female drag queens". After that, a change in the lead could very well be warranted. The lead should briefly reflect what's in the article, not the other way around. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Serge, I responded to you above with a quote from a mainstream source that literally says, [T]here are many drag queens of varying sexual orientations and gender identities. [34] But again, you respond as though your concern was not addressed. And this is in addition to the fact that this specific wording in a source seems to be your own personal criterion rather than an established or consensus-based one.

I think we all also acknowledge that personal opinions and expertise are moot if not accompanied by reliable sourcing, but after the more than two dozen (!) WP:RS I have supplied for my arguments compared to the zero sources you have supplied for yours, I fail to see what argument you are presenting now. Armadillopteryx^talk 14:00, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I too am finding it tedious to ask over and over and over that you or somebody add text followed by such a source to the article text, to begin with, before we address the lead. I am not (not) unresponsive at all, just flabberghasted (aghast with flabber =))) at having to make the same request so many times. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:33, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps we've been misinterpreting each other's words. My reading of your comments was that you doubted the sourcing exists (obviously confusing to me since I provided some here). If all you're asking is for the sourced text to be added both to the body and the lead, then actually we agree with each other but just had a misunderstanding x) It's like we're inadvertently writing a sitcom :-D

I can make that edit—not at this very moment, but in the next day or so. Armadillopteryx^talk 00:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

My suggestion is that text and such a good source be added to the body, not yet the lead. The lead should reflect what generally are the most decriptive points for the body as a whole - and that is as yet an uncertainnty. Please keep that in mind when choosing what to add to the body, to give your wishes for the lead a better chance for consensus. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:19, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the lead should adequately summarize the article contents as per policy (and common sense). Given that, it would seem to make the lead less accurate if the body and lead are not changed at the same time, right? Armadillopteryx^talk 00:25, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I think we should have consensus that what we want to word in the lead well reflects whatever has been (has been) added to the body before we make any more changes to this item in the lead. We should also give other users a few days to opine on the addition to the body so that it's reasonably stable once we change the lead. Suggestion: start a new section on this talk page and present briefly what you've added to the body of the article, when you've done that. All this is way too long now - and that's a hindrance to progress. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:38, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

It's a lot to wade through for an interested person with limited time. If any of the added sources cleary and reliably state that "many" (many) women are known as (quote) "drag queens", I'd like that speficic source wording quoted here, please. To me it's a prerequisite for making the suggested change to the lead. As far as I know "almost always", statistically, is still correct, but I am open to change my mind depending on the sources. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:51, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I quoted a source that states, [T]here are many drag queens of varying sexual orientations and gender identities. Your insistence on the exact phrase "many women are known as drag queens" is a little bewildering when a lot of the sourcing I have presented on this page states as much in different words. I think that demanding a specific line of text for a criterion that is personal to you is neither reasonable nor productive. I would like to respectfully suggest that if you are so adamant about the phrase "almost always male", the onus is on you to provide sourcing for such. I've provided lots of sourcing to the contrary, some of which is now in the article per your request.

Where are you getting your statistical assumptions from, and do you have a source that states (quote) "drag queens are almost always male" (quote)? The article never contained such a source, so insisting that this is a fact is a little bewildering to me, especially when present sourcing indicates that that is not true. I'd be happy to add some other sources I quoted above, such as the one that states, While each performer may prefer a different title, there seems to be a consensus that, above all, female queens are drag queens. Would that be helpful? Armadillopteryx^talk 20:27, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Update to article body

I've made an edit to the article body to incorporate some of what has been discussed on this talk page. How does this look to those interested, and do we feel it's reasonable to change almost always male to usually male in the lead now? I'd like to note that the longstanding, stable definition of drag king in this article states that those performers are usually women, not almost always women. I made some clarity/grammar edits to the whole paragraph, including that section, but I did not change that specific wording (see previous version of page). Armadillopteryx^talk 09:00, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I still support "usually male" or "typically male" (like the Psychology Today source you added) instead of "almost always male." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:41, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your input (and for this edit!). One thing I would suggest with the phrasing in that diff is to remove the word "gay", since I think the references this article makes to female impersonators in minstrel shows and vaudeville and the like weren't necessarily gay men—just men (disclaimer: I have not looked at the sourcing super closely). The (poorly sourced) Night clubs section seems to imply that drag wasn't associated with homosexuality until the early to mid-1900s. Armadillopteryx^talk 10:02, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Changed to match the lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:11, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Looks great; thanks! Armadillopteryx^talk 10:20, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Another possible route?

Though I am prepared to continue the almost always vs. usually debate if necessary, I've just had an idea that may be more appealing to everyone:

What if we scrap the quantity-based modifier entirely and replace it with a non-quantity-based modifier, such as traditionally? Here is a lead sentence I would be happy with:
A drag queen is a person, traditionally male, who uses drag clothing and makeup to imitate and often exaggerate female gender signifiers and gender roles for entertainment purposes.

I like this somewhat better than usually male and (obviously) a lot better than almost always male. The word traditionally gives a nod to the fact that most historically recorded drag queens have been men and also carries the implication that this is presently the most common case, crucially, without making any explicit insinuations as to the prevalence of male and non-male queens.

There is already sourcing in the article to support the historical implication of traditionally as well as to clarify beyond any doubt that modern drag queens are not always men.

Do you guys like this? It would be so nice if we could find a solution that everyone is truly happy with. Armadillopteryx^talk 08:44, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

The problem with traditionally, is that it describes how things used to be, without giving any indication how they are now. It's not wrong, but loses some of the information about current practice, imho. Also, consensus doesn't mean everybody is going to be happy; if you can get everyone to tolerate it, you've got consensus. Mathglot (talk) 10:22, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Thanks for your input. I don't personally read traditionally as referring only to how things were in the past, but rather to present things rooted in the past—that's what any living tradition is, isn't it?

I'm aware that consensus does not mean everyone will be happy, but I think it would be nice to try for that, settling for tolerance if we need to (and I do think we may well need to). Out of curiosity, can you think of any other non-quantifiers that you feel would be fitting here? Armadillopteryx^talk 11:47, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree to "traditionally" for the lead sentence, and this is per what I stated in the #A few other thoughts about the lead section above. Mathglot is correct that "traditionally" doesn't speak to how things are. And "traditionally" is already covered by "Historically, most drag queens have been men dressing as women." Please don't ping me when replying. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:06, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

It is certainly not correct (not by any objective standard, anyway) to say that traditionally refers exclusively to the past. It's much the opposite, in fact. Oxford Dictionaries list the first definition of traditionally as "[a]s part of a long-established custom, practice, or belief; typically". [35] That said, this is seemingly unimportant to our discussion at this point, as this option is clearly not gaining any favor. Was just an idea. Armadillopteryx^talk 22:34, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I didn't state that "traditionally refers exclusively to the past." I stated that "traditionally" doesn't speak to how things are. By this, I meant that it's not directly speaking on how things currently are. When people use "traditionally," they usually are not using it to state "this is how things are now." Otherwise, why even use "traditionally"? And if speaking of how things are now, why not be direct with it? Why state the matter in a roundabout way as to inject ambiguity? I do not support "traditionally" in this case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:25, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

If you say a word "doesn't speak to how things are", it sounds to me like you're saying the word does not refer to the present. This is what I tried to rephrase in my own words with "refers exclusively to the past".

Maybe we have tended to encounter the word traditionally in different situations. You said, When people use "traditionally," they usually are not using it to state "this is how things are now." This may be where we diverge, since I most often hear traditionally referring precisely to "how things are", with emphasis on the fact that the present norm has been long-established by tradition. I think it is neither roundabout nor vague to provide that context. This makes me think we simply have different connotations of the word, though the dictionary definition is clear on its own (even listing typically as a synonym). Since traditionally can be interpreted with wide variation and somewhat divergent meanings, I agree it's a bad choice for the lead. Armadillopteryx^talk 00:51, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

One other new idea

I am also open to exploring other quantifiers than those that have already been discussed. One option I like would be to replace almost always or usually with most often. This idea appeals to me because the language presents male drag queens as a mathematical mode (i.e. the most common option/variety of drag queen—the value most often taken by "drag queen") without making unsourced insinuations about the absolute prevalence of males/non-males in the drag queen population. That is, I am also happy with:

A drag queen is a person, most often male, who uses drag clothing and makeup to imitate and often exaggerate female gender signifiers and gender roles for entertainment purposes.

Do people like this option? Armadillopteryx^talk 11:47, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Not sure if you're mostly targeting the always/usually/traditionally part of it, but if that's the case, I like "most often" best of the alternatives so far, but I'll have to think about why I had that reaction, as I can't articulate it right now. If you're open to other parts of the phrase, I've long had a problem with "for entertainment purposes". For me, "entertainment purposes" implies some kind of organized entertainment, as opposed to entertaining themselves, i.e., just having fun with their friends. Most queens fall in the latter category, if you ask me, and aren't earning any money or performing on stage, although when they do, the drag and makeup is perhaps more elaborate, and more expensive, but not always. Haven't thought much about how to improve it, but would "amusement or entertainment" cover both cases better than the current version? To me, amusement implies non-commercial, and for themselves or their friends. Mathglot (talk) 11:54, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I was targeting the always/usually/traditionally part, since that's where SergeWoodzing and I have been stuck for the past few days. That said, I'm also open to discussing the end of the sentence. I do not mind changing "for entertainment purposes" to "for amusement or entertainment". I would also support a version with clarifying terms, such as "for self-amusement or commercial entertainment".

While we're at it, I'd like to point out that drag clothing is poor phrasing, since clothing used for drag purposes is simply called drag (as in the Drag (clothing)—not Drag clothing—article. Funnily enough, an easy way to solve that problem would actually be to drop drag and leave clothing. Here's one candidate sentence:

A drag queen is a person, most often male, who uses clothing and makeup to imitate and/or exaggerate female gender signifiers and gender roles for amusement or entertainment.

Does that have any appeal? Armadillopteryx^talk 12:09, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

To throw out another quibble with the sentence that can be addressed once we resolve existing questions: It's not only clothing and makeup that drag queens use to create their illusions. They also use nails, wigs, chest plates, silicone pads, foam hips, other prostheses, and, well a lot of other materials ... so a lead sentence accounting only for clothing and makeup doesn't adequately describe the material contents of drag. Armadillopteryx^talk 12:26, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I still prefer "usually" or "typically." Comes across as more accurate than "most often." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:06, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I am still also happy with usually. I don't like typically for the same reason I don't like normally: the implication that non-male queens would be atypical or abnormal. I find most often to be most accurate, though. Armadillopteryx^talk 22:34, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Just to gain some more understanding of your thoughts, how would you feel about an alternative like most commonly? Armadillopteryx^talk 22:49, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't support "most often" or "most commonly" in this case because something can still be "most often" while something else is only a little ways behind "most often." This isn't just a "little ways behind" matter, such as the majority being 60% and the minority being 50%. It is usually the case that drag queens are cisgender men. At this point, I think it's time I list academic sources so that we can go ahead and simply add "usually" and stop debating semantics. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:25, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Please share your sources. I would be happy to see them and even happier if they make it easy to (finally) obtain consensus.

Even a statement like This isn't just a "little ways behind" matter, such as the majority being 60% and the minority being 50% is speculation/OR unless sourced. I think we are probably all frustrated with the lack of published statistics on this subject, as that would make our decisions more clear-cut, for sure. There is no exhaustive census of the gender identities of drag queens (which would be virtually impossible to obtain anyway—it's not a well defined, tracked population like citizens of a country, and I can think of more than a few serious obstacles to obtaining a truly random, representative sample).

It is precisely for this reason that I favor a more broad and less extreme term like "usually" (which encompasses "almost always", but not vice versa) or "most often" (which tells us the most common option without making statements we can't source, like whether we're looking at a 99/1 or 75/25 or 60/40 ratio). Regardless of what you (or I) feel the ratio is, we should choose a word only as specific as what can be sourced. I am, as from the beginning, happy with usually. Armadillopteryx^talk 00:51, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Stating "this isn't just a 'little ways behind' matter, such as the majority being 60% and the minority being 50%" isn't speculation/OR. It's based on sources that make it clear that drag queens are usually men. "Usually" doesn't at all equate to "a small majority." I'll list sources later. I, of course, am not suggesting that we add any OR in the article. Not sure what you mean regarding "but not vice versa" with regard to "usually" and "almost always." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I think we agree, since my full sentence was Even a statement like "This isn't just a 'little ways behind' matter, such as the majority being 60% and the minority being 50%" is speculation/OR unless sourced. Re: "but not vice versa" w/r/t "usually" and "almost always": I just meant that "almost always" is more specific than "usually". Like, the set of things that happen "almost always" is a proper subset of the set of things that happen "usually". "Usually" does not exclude any case describable by "almost always", but "almost always" excludes some cases describable "usually".

Since this discussion has gone on for so long, do you think it would be useful to start a new subheading and take a quick poll of which terms everyone is presently okay with? Maybe one of the many options discussed is, by now, at least tolerable/acceptable to everyone still interested, even if our exact orders of preference differ. Armadillopteryx^talk 06:07, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Present feelings/consensus?

This discussion appears to have died out without a formal consensus being reached. There were a couple options that, to the best of my comprehension, had at least two supporters each (namely "usually" and "most often"). I can personally tolerate both of those (but not "almost always"). Would others care to state which options are presently tolerable to them? Armadillopteryx^talk 04:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Drag queen story time protest, Australia

Recently a group of youths protested a DQST in Australia. The Twitter mob went baying for their blood, claiming usage of the term 'drag queen' was homophobic (most people didn't notice it was called drag queen story hour and just wanted to be outraged), calling them nazi's, hitler youth (which trended for two days in Australia) and tracked down all the kids involved, calling their friends, family, workplace. One of the kids killed himself, others are in hiding. I pointed out as a drag performer that they had every right to protest in a public library, it wasn't shut, or a special event, so it was open to them as members of the public and they have a democratic right to protest. I was hounded, my facebook suddenly filled with comments, my 80 year old mothers facebook filled with hateful comments. The backlash to peaceful public protests is worse than the backlash we got in the 70's for being openly gay, and far, far more hateful. This is a kind of hate I've never seen before. Virulent, fueled with self righteousness. The kind of hatred you see in religious nuts. It's terrifying. But someone needs to adjust the story time section to mention it's now in Australia and has taken its first life there too. I've noticed that the other suicides, the murder of one protestor, the molestation of children by Garcia etc are being intentionally left out of the DQST section - but this is dishonest and clearly POV by omission. Could an established editor who hasn't just faced 48 hours of their phone ringing off the hook telling them they're literal nazi's adjust this? I'm literally shaking too much from the abuse to try and string a coherent sentence together and am moving out of my dorm as the address has been given out publicly. All because I said hounding children to death was bad. :/ 121.210.33.50 (talk) 09:03, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I came to this discussion, b clicking the link 'In the early to mid-1900s, female impersonation had become tied to the LGBT community[dubious – discuss]' However, this discussion as above refers to a different issue, that I thought I would comment on too, so here are two things. I fully understand the experience of the person above, as this type of mob-minded attacking people has gotten ridiculous, which is one reason I no longer use social media - as a trans gender person who transitioned 20 years ago, I repeatedly got verbal abuse from newly transgender people, because they felt my use of long established terms (including medical terms like transsexual) was offensive. However, coming back to the wikipedia article reference, linked to this discussion. I would concur that the statement - drag became tied to LGBT in the early to mid-1900s - is inaccurate. Speaking for the UK, drag was tied to the gay scene in 1900s. There was no LGBT scene until post year 2000. At least as far as the UK goes, prior to 2000s, gay people neither acknowledged trans people, nor did they acknowledge bisexual people, so there was no LGBT community in 1900s, neither early, mid nor late, and hence drag was not tied to the non-existent LGBT community, rather it was tied to the gay community. Marcymarcymarcy (talk) 10:55, 6 March 2020 (UTC)