Talk:Drag (entertainment)

Comment 1

This page was created both because "drag" needed an article and as an attempt to clarify, improve and make more inclusive the articles on drag queens and drag kings. I have not redirected either of those articles yet, but that's what I hope to do. Please leave your comments below. Exploding Boy 08:55, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)

The Drag article itself isn't bad. There is no need to throw in Drag King and Drag Queen, though. -- AlexR 19:15, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This page is really where we should have been having this discussion about the drag article, but we're obviously never going to agree on this topic. I still disagree with some of your definitions and I think this article is better than three small and incomplete ones, but I'm going to remove some of what you object to from here. Exploding Boy 22:20, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)

Too late. I see you unilaterally made that decision already. Exploding Boy 22:22, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)

What is the origin of the word Drag? Did it derive by combing fag with some other word?

See article. But, alas, see also the statement in the aricle "Another theory (or usage) is that "drag" would be an abbreviation of "dressed as girl" in description of male-to-female transvestism, sometimes used together with the opposite "drab" for "dressed as boy"..." ...um, or "drat!" for "dressed as turkey?" Wetman 01:45, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Could the origins of the term lie in Polari? I know the article says it's from the 1950s and 60s, but if you look at the talk page that's disputed, and the origins for some Polari words like drag can be traced back much farther.

"The term "drag" may have been given a wider circulation in Polari, a gay street argot in England in the early part of the last century."

If the origin is from Polari, then I would guess that it's a backwards spelling of "gard", being short for the French "garde-robe" (meaning warddrobe), since both backslang and borrowings from French/Italian/Romani are common in Polari, especially for theatre terms. I have no evidence of this, though. Scientivore 02:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The current version of the derivation, dating from some unsigned edits on 8 May 2010, says that "the term may have originated in Athens, Greece in the fourth century BCE, when it was common practice for gender-nonconforming people to be dragged through the streets as punishment." How can this possibly be true, and why has it remained virtually unedited for so long? What Greek word would it be derived from? Or does the person who inserted this think they spoke modern English in Ancient Greece? "Drag" meaning to pull or be pulled along with force, derives from Old English dragan = draw (pull) related to Swedish dragga (Collins English Dictionary, Millennium Edition). The so-called "folk etymology" is far more credible than this "Ancient Greek" nonsense! The original edit also deleted some factual material about travesti/travesty. SiGarb | (Talk) 13:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Remove LGBT Table.

Wearing drag is not only a LGBT thing,it implies that people who wear drag are gay or bi,when many drag wearers are not. Dudtz 6/10/06 6:27 PM EST

Nonsense - how does the table imply that? It just implies that it is also an article relevant to LGBT subject, not that it is only relevant in an LGBT context. -- John Smythe 13:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

it does imply that

the articles for "male" and "female" are relevant to LGBT, clearly, and yet no table there. the table in this article is indicating a deep relationship between LGBT and drag, which doesn't exist. As many people *coughhomophobescough* make the connection mistakenly, the table should be removed for clarification. LGBT is specifically about sexual orientation, which has no connection to drag whatsoever. Makuta Bookworm 17:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Id like to take issue with a number of descriptions and statements in this article. However, the main objection I have is the use of the word 'straight' to describe those going to see the Rocky Horror show 'mostly straight men'... this term 'striaght' I feel is insulting and derrogatory because the opposite of straight is bent, meaning malformed, dysfunctional, deviant, wrongful. Please stop using this word 'straight' to describe hetero men (or women) or issues. They are simply 'hetero'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.13.37.150 (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. "Straight" is too well entrenched in English to be considered derogatory (even when it isn't intended that way), and besides, it's more meaningful than "hetero" (which is only a prefix: "-sexual" is implied); it means "not unusual" in a broad sense. A heterosexual cross-dresser might consider non-cross-dressers "straight", but when referring to people unlike him wouldn't refer to them as "heterosexuals". Unfree (talk) 20:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

To do drag

The article says, "The verb is to 'do drag.'" But there's no evidence cited. I've never heard "to do drag", but I've often heard "to go in drag".

Also, "A folk etymology whose acronym basis reveals the late 20th-century bias..." Which bias?

"Drag is practiced by people of all sexual orientations and gender identities." Is that verifiable? What about homophobia? There must be somebody who doesn't "do drag"! Unfree (talk) 20:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree; a lot of this article isn't written very well. To "do drag" is not a verb I've heard, but I've heard "dressed in drag" and referring to someone/some people "[being/is/are] in drag." Your third comment about dressing in drag being practiced by all sexual orientations is a little off; I've heard it said that the majority of men who dress in drag are, in fact, heterosexual. But, I agree that it should be cited. » ɧʒЖχ ^{(ταικ•κоŋτяљ)} 12:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The expression 'to drag up' is certainly common in the United Kingdom, however if someone said they were going to 'do drag' I would be in no doubt as to what they meant Whitenoiseuk (talk) 12:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

You're both right, and way past time for this to be changed. I'll remove it now. Mathglot (talk) 09:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Social History of the Theater

I was reading the section on Drag in the performing arts and it says "One is cross-dressing in the performance, which is part of the social history of theatre." I would like to point out that dressing in as a gender not one's own has been a part of the practice of the theater as far back as the middle ages, and perhaps even further. I think it should be noted in the article. » ɧʒЖχ ^{(ταικ•κоŋτяљ)} 12:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Etymology?

“The term originated in Athens, Greece in the fourth century B.C.E. when it was common practice for gender-noncomforming people to be dragged through the streets as punishment”

This sounds very dubious to me, especially since the basic verb 'to drag' is from Old English origins, not Greek. It is a pity the contributor has not cited a page reference for Professor Don Kulick’s book Travesti which appears to focus on transvestitism among Brazilian prostitutes.

The Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper suggests that

[Drag in the] sense of "women's clothing worn by a man" is said to be 1870 theatre slang, from the sensation of long skirts trailing on the floor (another guess is Yiddish trogn "to wear," from Ger. tragen)

Any thoughts? Whitenoiseuk (talk) 12:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

In Dutch, 'to wear' is 'dragen', with a 'd'. Erik Wannee (talk) 05:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I share Whitenoiseuk's concern. A great deal of time would have gone by between Ancient Athens and the modern usage causing me to question whether that usage could have continued that long. Beyond that, as Whitenoiseuk notes, the term would have had to somehow been translated from Ancient Greek to English. So the usage wouldn't have just persisted for a long time. It would have had to make enough sense for people to translate it into another language. I'm not saying it cannot be true but that it seems likely that there would have had to at least been other factors that caused the term "drag" to make sense to English speaking people. I like the Online Etymology Dictionary explanation Whitenoiseuk offers. It makes more sense in terms of date and language of origin. My personal suspicion is that it may not have simply been long skirts or simply used in connection with cross-dressing. I've always suspected that, at some point, any costume was referred to as one's "drag". But that is just my suspicion. That would relate, however, to the speculation Whitenoiseuk has offered about Yiddish or German and the fact that "drag" is not always used in reference to cross-dressing.. OdilonRedon (talk) 20:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)OdilonRedon

I checked the Oxford English Dictionary. All they have with regard to the term as used in the context of cross-dressing was an 1870 reference to someone saying "We shall come in drag" or something similar. (I talked to a reference librarian on the phone which is why I don't have the exact quote.) This is simply the earliest use of the term in that context that the OED has on record. The OED did not offer any annotations that the librarian could find with regard to how the usage developed. I did ask about that specifically. A second librarian was also checking the reference. OdilonRedon (talk) 22:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)OdilonRedon

I have always understood the term to originate from Victorian cross dressers wearing the long skirts of the period in London. The rather exaggerated length dragged on the ground as they walked about. Unfortunately I don't have a reference for this. --Ef80 (talk) 13:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The folk etymology is supposed to be: "dressed resembling a girl"; I have no reference for this. The article on Polari gives the origin as a Hindi word, entering English through Romany. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.13.52.125 (talk) 20:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Theatre

The theatre section really could do with a bit about pantomime dames. I don't know enough myself about the history of pantomime to write this, but someone surely does. TRiG (talk) 16:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Wrong title

The article needs to be renamed. "Drag" in this sense, is not about the clothing, it's about the wearing of certain types of clothing (or makeup, or accessories) that are highly associated with one gender, by someone of the other gender. It isn't drag when it's hanging on the rack, and it isn't drag when worn by a person of the "right" gender.

The wrong title leads to all sorts of problems in the article, starting with the first sentence which currently says, The term "drag" usually refers to the clothing associated with one gender role when worn by a person of another gender, but that's just not correct as it doesn't refer to the clothing at all, but rather the act of donning it by someone whose gender would normally be inappropriate for that type of clothing based on gender roles in a particular time and place.

Perhaps a better title would be, "In drag", although that makes it an adjective or adverb, and article titles are usually nouns. Here's ngram viewer with some data for common expressions with "in drag". Alternatively, perhaps a different parenthetical disambiguation would resolve it, although I can't think of a single parenthesized word that would work. Mathglot (talk) 10:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

While I still have problems with the title, I think I've convinced myself that changes to the article can make up for whatever deficiencies the title has, and I just can't think of a better one (maybe someone else can). Anyway, wrt the point about article titles as nouns, there are exceptions, and the See also section in this article provides one: namely, En femme. I've done some work on the lead so the objection I raised concerning the first sentence is mostly taken care of now, and with that and further work on the article I hope that may alleviate any issues with the title. Mathglot (talk) 01:26, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I agreed 100% about this, thought about it a bit, worked on a collage of drag clothing in action, added it and almost immediiately struck out. Sad. See new section below. Good luck with this y'all! Sincerely (I am never sarcastic), --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:21, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Verifiability of performing arts section

Verifiability is a core policy of Wikipedia, and unsourced material may be challenged and removed. The Performing arts section has very few references for its large size, so I've tagged it, and am hereby challenging the the section in its entirety, minus the limited portions substantiated by the four or five references present. Note that this section represents over half the article currently and contains the subsections Theatre, Opera, Film and television, and Music. I hope that references can be found, as much of the material is interesting, but if it takes slashing over half the article to bring it into compliance, then so be it.

In addition, some sections of the text in the section sound very polished, which otoh is great, but otoh I question whether some may have been copied from somewhere without the required attribution. The first paragraph of section Film and television for example includes this sentence:

The self-consciously risqué bourgeois high jinks of Brandon Thomas' Charley's Aunt (London, 1892) were still viable theatre material in La Cage aux Folles 1978...

and it remains pretty much intact since it was added on 6 July 2004. I did a web search but other than one print on demand book from 2013 and various mirror sites I haven't found a likely origin for it, so perhaps the phrasing is the editor's, however the text would still require citations from reliable sources, as does the whole section.

In any case, for now, I've just tagged the section, but if there's been no activity in, say, a month or so, then I'll start to prune this section down to remove unsourced material and remain in compliance with policy. Mathglot (talk) 23:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Tl;dr: Much of this section smacks of plagiarism, but I don't see how to prove it. Perhaps the best that can be done, is demand sources for everything, and just start cutting out what can't be sourced. Mathglot (talk) 00:27, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

More editors welcome

Pinging you here per your talk page request. Not sure if Drag (clothing) is on your watchlist, but it was in rough shape. I've made a series of edits recently; hopefully, it's better than it was, but it seems like it has a ways to go. If it's something you'd be interested in contributing to, I'd be honored. Naturally, feel free to tweak/revert my changes, if not an improvement. There are also a couple of Talk page sections above that could use comment. Mathglot (talk) 00:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah, no, it wasn't on my watchlist, but it is now. You've done fine with helping to fix it up. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:51, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Image removed

[[:File:Wild Side Story 1973 collage.jpg|thumb|left|1973 all male cast of Wild Side Story, performing in street clothes mixed with stage wadrobe, includes Roxanne Russell, and Rena Del Rio]] I did hours of work on a collage of very rare photos from 1973 that I have access to and added it to the article. To show several different styles of Drag (clothing). Soon deleted with this summary "Good subject in the image, but collages don't show up well, plus the original is of poor quality. Find a better one and include it." - as if there are a lot of relevant, rare, free images of that kind around to be plucked like abundant ripe fruit in a vast orchard. Oh, well! The word "picky" irresistably comes to mind. Sorry, You find a better one! I'm (knocked) out. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:10, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

@SergeWoodzing: I'm sorry you're knocked out. Regardless of how many images of that kind there are from the era, the image just isn't of very high quality and doesn't add much to the article. But, it sounds like you're saying above that you have access to the photos separately and made up that collage yourself, is that right? It's the collage that doesn't work, imho, but that doesn't mean that one of the individual photos necessarily wouldn't. Why do't you pick out the best photo of the bunch, put it through an image processing app that can enhance the colors, add a little contrast and take out that hazy effect, maybe sharpen it up or do anything else that seems needed, and try including that instead? That might work a lot better. Or, you could try to gain consensus for the collage image; maybe people will agree with you. Cordially, 16:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)Mathglot (talk)

You pick one or two and I'll do what I can, lest I pick one you don't care for! My eyesight is not great anymore. I'm an old man.

The collage is very large (at least I got that part right) so you should be able to have a look at each photo enlarged, for example by downloading the collage and using a common viewing program. In that suggestion I assume that you, too, would like to see the article illustrated (at all).

As far as I know we are not required to be professional graphic designers with expensive photo processing programs and top notch scanners to be allowed to contribute our images to Commons and WP articles. In all my years of WC and WP work I have never once seen an image removed, mine or anybody else's, with pointers and demands like these placed on the donor and user. I didn't know that there were Quality Control Agents and Graphic Design teachers on duty to police the projects for the Foundation nowadays, if there actually are.

If I seem upset in an un-called for manner, that's because I find this particularly distressing when someone, I or anyone, only wanted to provide a good (enough) image to an article which (1) had no image at all and (2) really needs help in motivating its name (see a section above on that). --SergeWoodzing (talk) 03:32, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Young or old you, you sound crotchety and out of sorts, and I don't wish to get involved in a dispute with you. I've seen images removed all the time, way better ones than this one, for all sorts of reasons. And no need to get prissy talking about Quality Control Agents, just be civil. You say you're annoyed, you're distressed, you complain about "policing" and "demands" and "expensive equipment"—anything else you wish to complain about concerning placement of a single image while we're at it? And all I was doing was trying to help you improve the article by providing a better image, but I guess you're not having any of it, you'd rather complain about pretty much everything. You seem like a disagreeable sort to get involved in a discussion with, so how about this for a solution: do whatever you like, I don't care. Put the crappy, faded, blurry image with a multitude of tiny embedded images in it back where it was, in exactly the same crappy format it was before. Or don't. It's not worth listening to your prickly diatribes about something so minor, and I'd rather just not deal with someone like you. So you have free rein. Happy now? Have a great weekend, and get out in the sunshine and smell the roses. You're taking this all way too seriously. Cordially Mathglot (talk) 08:21, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Woah! Enough with the personal attacks already!

I guess I did take your commanding tone in "Find a better one and include it" too seriously. Reminded me of some overly demanding teachers I had years ago and didn't like. Sorry! Maybe you're not as condescending as I thought (?). You evidently are very interested in this article so, sincerely, I'd like to get along with you.

How about this, in all simplicity, some yes or no questions, sticking to what I believe this page actually is for:

1. Do you feel the article is better off with no image at all, than with this collage?
2. If yes, are you willing to help me select 1-2 of the images in the collage that you could approve of, instead of the collage?
3. If yes, would you be willing, due to my limited eyesight and limited access to graphics programs, to help in improving the quality of the image of your choice if I send you the original (as is, that's all I have) by e-mail or post it here?

Courteously, --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:49, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Restored collage image because of no further reply. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:59, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Collage added by a COI editor removed as it is not a quality image and the arguments of User:Mathglot are 100% valid. Domdeparis (talk) 12:45, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:LGBT about similarity among several related articles

A discussion about the similarity and differences among several articles including Cross-dressing, Transvestism and other related articles (this one, Transvestic fetishism, Ball culture, et al.) is taking place at WT:LGBT. Your feedback is welcome. Mathglot (talk) 22:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Ball culture

Recently, an IP added new section Ball culture. While there is plenty of good information here, it needs to be cut way back. The problem is: wrong venue. We already have an article entitled Ball culture, and the material should be merged there. Once that is done, by following the guideline about Summary style, this article may contain a brief section summarizing the "Ball culture" topic, as the Parent article. IP 2A02:8388:1600:9100:FC87:A2EE:DBD1:B8D8 (I've pinged you on your talk page) could you please move this information, or merge it into Ball culture first, and then we can see about what kind of summary we want to retain in this article. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 12:24, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

So, nothing much has changed since then, so I've taken a stab at it. I moved the whole section to Talk:Ball culture, where the detailed material can be copied or merged in, as appropriate. It has been replaced by a new, shorter, and much more general, summary-style introduction, which I believe will be much more accessible and informative to the general reader, than what was there before. The kernel of it is made up of a copy of the introductory paragraph from Ball culture, slightly shortened, and modified to make it more appropriate here, and adding a {{Main}} article link in Summary style. This was then augmented by a brief, second paragraph, describing the spread of the previously largely unknown subculture to a larger audience through the Madonna song, the Livingston documentary, and the TV series Pose. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 10:12, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Dressed or disguised?

My edit summary " 'or' did not make sense there" was apparently not enough, so asked to explain after this reversal, OK: People who are disguised as women are always dressed as women. People who are dressed as women are at times in disguise as women, at times not disguised as women. Thus "or" is not an applicable word there. Is that difficult to understand? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

It's not that the comment " 'or' did not make sense there" wasn't enough, it's that it was wrong. It makes perfect sense there. As English is not your native tongue, you should defer to those for whom it is. As many people read en-wiki who are not native speakers, I agree that we should strive for language that makes sense to everyone, but not at the expense of replacing a correct and unambiguous statement, with a change that is not an improvement, and isn't necessary. If you can explain why it didn't make sense to you personally, I'll try to find a wording that retains the original logic and meaning, while satisfying your confusion about the wording.

Also, please observe WP:BRD; if you make a change and are reverted, don't simply revert back, try to gain consensus here first. Simply copying your original edit summary from your edit onto the Talk page, and then reverting without waiting for any response, is not "discussion"; it's edit warring. C'mon; you've been around for a long time; you know this full well. Mathglot (talk) 04:57, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

1. I reverted, of course, only because I assumed that in 22 hours my explanation here had been seen & accepted.
2. Are the two users User:CorbieVreccan & User:Mathglot in teamwork here to get what they want, and do they both think is was correct that the former reverted again w/o using this page?
3. English is my first language. I have no idea why any incorrect assumption about that is made here. I have also taught English since 1969 often for periods of seveal years at at time, and as recently as 2016-19. I am also published in English in popular as well as academic texts for which I have been paid a lot of money. (Why do such credentials seem to matter here?) Because of age-challenged eyesight, I do a lot of typos, unfortunately, but the meaning of the word "or" has been perfectly clear to me since 1953. Being dressed as a woman and being disguised as a woman are not dissimilar phenomenons except in their intent, the former unspecified; the latter specified. A man disguised as a woman is invariably dressed as a woman. Thus "or" is used incorrectly there.
4. No more fantasies about by language skills, please. And no more supercilious lectures.

I look forward that better wording. Nothing yet. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:14, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

My mistake regarding your native language, sorry; I thought you had told me you were Swedish. I stand corrected on that point. It makes your "makes no sense" comment all the more mysterious. Regarding your other comments, see WP:BRD; "waiting 22 hours" doesn't gain you consensus to do whatever you want. And, regarding User:CorbieVreccan and myself, it could be we are members of a secret cabal, but I'm not admitting to anything and please don't tell anyone, this information is strictly for your eyes only. Mathglot (talk) 16:53, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh, now I remember why I thought you were; congratulations on your thousands of contributions to Swedish Wikipedia going back to 2009. Mathglot (talk) 17:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

The Differences in Minor Phrasings Cabal. Shhhhhh..... - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:04, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Not a word in any of all that ridicule, sarcasm and attempted bullying about the issue and the article (what this page is for): the fact remains that a man disguised as a woman invariably is dressed as a woman; thus "or" is used incorrectly there. Where's the solution? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:49, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Listing guidelines and policies to you is not "bullying", and the "or" is not used incorrectly there. The way the sentence is phrased now is fine, leads to no misunderstanding, and doesn't need to be changed. If you want to propose a sentence below that you feel is better, no one is stopping you. Perhaps you will gain consensus for your point of view, and then it will be changed to your preferred wording. Until that time, please leave the current wording as it is. This is a volunteer project, and if it came across as sarcastic or ridicule to you, then I apologize; but sometimes one resorts to humor to let off steam when faced with someone who just won't get the point and keeps banging away at it; in any case, it's far better than a personal attack (which no one here has engaged in; just saying that humor beats the alternatives). I think it's either time to let it go, or, if you feel very strongly about this, then marshal your best arguments, and try to attract other editors to your point of view. As for me, I've heard and said enough about this now, and will disengage and go spend my highly-paid editor time somewhere else. Oh, one last point of curiosity: how did you learn to speak Swedish at a native level? I wish I had your talent for languages. Have a nice day! Mathglot (talk) 21:31, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I am here to to try, with some difficulty myself, to adhere to WP:TPYES "Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused on the topic of the talk page, rather than on the editors participating." - not to be subjected to any more sarcasm about paid editing, be cross-examined about languages & my background nor get sarcastic myself about how many bilingual people there are in the world. No use to accept an apology when the same continues after it.

A man disguised as a woman invariably is dressed as a woman; thus "or" is used incorrectly there, and my change should not have been reverted leaving incorrect English. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:09, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Consider the case of a man with hairstyle, makeup, prostheses etc providing the bodily appearance of a woman, wearing clothing normally considered men's apparel, or gender neutral apparel. Is this a man disguised as a woman? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:19, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Haha, way to throw a curveball in this discussion XD. I would say, yes...but then is he in drag? Firejuggler86 (talk) 14:24, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Title

I feel like Drag (performance) would be a better title based on the content of the article. Thoughts? – Anne drew 02:21, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

You know what, I don't know enough about the subject to make this kind of suggestion. Our drag queen does link here with the words "drag clothing" so perhaps the current title is okay. But to me it seems like "clothing" doesn't capture everything about this subject, which is also a performance art and a subculture. I'm interested to hear what others think. – Anne drew 02:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I could support a move to Drag (entertainment). --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:28, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:59, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Would Drag art or Drag (art) be more simple and accurate? Xdtp (talk) 17:28, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

"Entertainment" can hardly be questioned. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:46, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Drag performed for oneself alone

It is my experience that some drag persons (queens as well as kings) who do not perform for any other audience than themselves alone. They entertain themselves, not the general public. Can we add that in some appropriate wording to the lead? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:55, 8 April 2023 (UTC)