Split Thread: Difference between Blackface and Drag

[Darat]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Nope. It is an innermost sense of self which needn't manifest to the outside world in the form of behavior

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_behavior We have Internal as well as external behaviours.

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Is there some reason to believe the Mollies were "trans," in whatever sense you take the term? If not, can we safely assume they were your ordinary gays-who-call-themselves-men?

Again not something I have claimed. All I have said is that I believe we have some slight evidence to think some people who frequented Molly houses would be considered today to be trans.

And it is very funny to see you wanting to call men who had sex with men back in the 18th century "gay" given your views that we have to wait for Stoller before we can have people who think they are a different sex to the body they were born with. I wonder who the medical professionals in the late 1920s were doing sex change operations on 40 years before Stoller come up with his jargon?

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Do the Mollies show up in that wiki entry?

That has nothing to do with what I was responding to. Your premise is false.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Darat

All I have said is that I believe we have some slight evidence to think some people who frequented Molly houses would be considered today to be trans.

People who are today considered trans have a specific gender identity and sense of self; we've been given no reason to believe that the denizens of the Molly houses thought of themselves as women rather than men.

Originally Posted by Darat

And it is very funny to see you wanting to call men who had sex with men back in the 18th century "gay" given your views that we have to wait for Stoller before we can have people who think they are a different sex to the body they were born with.

I don't really care what you call them, but transgender remains a matter of self-identification rather than observable behavior.

Originally Posted by Darat

I wonder who the medical professionals in the late 1920s were doing sex change operations on 40 years before Stoller come up with his jargon?

Name one of the patients and we can look into how they self-identified.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

I don't really care what you call them, but transgender remains a matter of self-identification rather than observable behavior.

Do you really think that transgender people exhibit no observable behavior concerning their being transgender? Nothing at all?

Hint: You're missing something very obvious.

What about homosexuality? Do you also consider that to be a self-identification with no observable behavior?

[Darat]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

People who are today considered trans have a specific gender identity and sense of self; we've been given no reason to believe that the denizens of the Molly houses thought of themselves as women rather than men.

That is not true, you have been given reasons you just don't agree with those reasons.

Originally Posted by d4m10n

I don't really care what you call them, but transgender remains a matter of self-identification rather than observable behavior.

As does gay, as does straight.

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Name one of the patients and we can look into how they self-identified.

Lili Elbe

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by Darat

As does gay, as does straight.

Or, rather, as much as gay or as much as straight, which is to say not at all.

[Thermal]

Waxing metaphysical like a mother ****** ITT.

[theprestige]

I'm going to dissent from damion. Trans remains a matter of expert third party diagnosis, following personal interactions with the subject. Gazing across time and space, at accounts or images of men in drag, and saying "I can tell by looking that they are probably trans" is like George Bush saying he could see in Putin's eyes that he was a good man.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I'm going to dissent from damion. Trans remains a matter of expert third party diagnosis, following personal interactions with the subject. Gazing across time and space, at accounts or images of men in drag, and saying "I can tell by looking that they are probably trans" is like George Bush saying he could see in Putin's eyes that he was a good man.

Sorry, I'm not sure what aspect of the conversation you are responding to. Historical transgenderism? Observable behaviors?

[Darat]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I'm going to dissent from damion. Trans remains a matter of expert third party diagnosis, following personal interactions with the subject. Gazing across time and space, at accounts or images of men in drag, and saying "I can tell by looking that they are probably trans" is like George Bush saying he could see in Putin's eyes that he was a good man.

As ever you are building strawmen.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Do you really think that transgender people exhibit no observable behavior concerning their being transgender? Nothing at all?

I've been told that gender expression is not a reliable indicator of gender identity by the folks who claim to be well-versed in such matters. If a man presents himself in masculine outfits six days a week, but cross-dresses at Sunday brunch, what are we to conclude?

Originally Posted by Upchurch

What about homosexuality? Do you also consider that to be a self-identification with no observable behavior?

No, see my reply immediately below.

Originally Posted by Darat

As does gay, as does straight.

If a man claims to be straight but cruises for men at tea houses, we have some reason to be skeptical of his self-identification. There is nothing that can cause one to be skeptical of self-identification with respect to gender identity, however, because it is an entirely internal and subjective experience.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Darat

Lili Elbe

Pretty clear cut case of self-identifying with the opposite of one's birth sex. I'd say she wasn't performing drag (the topic here) but doing something else which might be confused with drag by those who look at snapshots instead of the full reel.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

…snip…

If a man claims to be straight but cruises for men at tea houses, we have some reason to be skeptical of his self-identification. There is nothing that can cause one to be skeptical of self-identification, however, because gender identity is an entirely internal experience.

We’ve known for a long time that there are men who have sex with men who do not identify as gay or homosexual or bisexual. Who someone has sex with does not tell you whether they identify as gay or not so your claimed external behaviour marker is the same as any external behaviour marker we may use to determine whether someone identifies as trans or not.

You seem to have lost the plot about what is being discussed by the way. Which is if you care to remember your claim that cisgender men were the originators of drag. Which of course given your recent line of argumentation means that drag originated no earlier than the 1990s - when the word cisgender was first coined and used….

[Darat]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Pretty clear cut case of self-identifying with the opposite of one's birth sex. I'd say she wasn't performing drag (the topic here) but doing something else which might be confused with drag by those who look at snapshots instead of the full reel.

As I said above you’ve lost the plot on what we were discussing which is that drag was originated sometime in the 1990s by cisgender men…..

[d4m10n]

My claim was that the males who originated drag identified themselves as men rather than women.

(I do not believe Lili Elbe was among them.)

[Darat]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

My claim was that the males who originated drag identified themselves as men rather than women.

(I do not believe Lili Elbe was among them.)

Well you said cisgender men, and they didn’t exist until the 1990s…

I’ll drop that now as I think I’ve rather belaboured the point.

Who are you saying originated drag?

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Darat

Well you said cisgender men, and they didn’t exist until the 1990s

You don't believe human males who self-identified as men existed until the 90s?

[Darat]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

You don't believe human males who self-identified as men existed until the 90s?

It’s your argument not mine.

[d4m10n]

Don't recall mentioning the 90s.

[Darat]

Who originated drag?

[d4m10n]

That depends on how many elements of modern drag you'd care to require.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-...all#Precedents

https://www.timlawrence.info/article...ure-of-voguing

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Darat

As does gay, as does straight.

Oh gosh, hadn't you heard? The bigots got their way! From now on, if someone wants to become officially gay, they have to be assessed by a psychiatrist and "live as a gay person" for 6 months before they get the Certificate of Gayness. Nobody who hasn't gone through that process can claim to be gay.

I trust you'll make sure you're in proper compliance ASAP.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

You don't believe human males who self-identified as men existed until the 90s?

I think that the officially-sanctioned full effect should be adult human males. The anti-transgender-identity police will be contacting you shortly to arrange corrective education.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

That depends on how many elements of modern drag you'd care to require.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-...all#Precedents

https://www.timlawrence.info/article...ure-of-voguing

Didn't ask about a subset of drag.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Darat

Didn't ask about a subset of drag.

I don't think it is merely a subset. From the second link, we see the origins of drag shows in the U.S. during the roaring 20s.

Quote:

Held once a year, the balls came to feature a procession known as the ‘parade of the fairies’, which involved drag queen contestants sashaying through the auditorium in preparation for a costume competition.

It is possible that similarly performative shows were independently invented at cross-dressing balls throughout Europe.

FWIW, I do think the "show" aspect is necessary to make any sort of comparison to blackface minstrelsy per the split OP. Merely cross-dressing and dancing is not enough to make the analogy work, there has to be a hyperbolic performance of femininity by people who have only ever been subjected to the social expectations and privileges of masculinity.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Darat

We’ve known for a long time that there are men who have sex with men who do not identify as gay or homosexual or bisexual. Who someone has sex with does not tell you whether they identify as gay or not so your claimed external behaviour marker is the same as any external behaviour marker we may use to determine whether someone identifies as trans or not.

That is a really weird way to view sexuality, Darat. A male who has sex with other males would, at the very least, be considered bisexual by pretty much anyone. What they want to call themselves is irrelevant. Sexuality isn't a matter of what word one identifies with, it's a matter of the sex to which one is attracted.

If it weren't, then the eighties would have been rather different - all those gay men could have just identified as straight and kept on sleeping with men... and nobody would beat them up for it, because they were "straight".

You yourself are gay. Does that mean that you have a sexual orientation toward the male half of the species? Or does it mean you just like the label but you really dig p-in-v sex all day every day?

Let's not get so wrapped up in playing word games that we forget that there are actual, real meanings behind them.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Darat

As I said above you’ve lost the plot on what we were discussing which is that drag was originated sometime in the 1990s by cisgender men…..

Well... I do think that their objection was to those who have been conflating drag performers with transgender identified males, and using that conflation to insinuate transphobia as an ad hominem.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Well... I do think that their objection was to those who have been conflating drag performers with transgender identified males, and using that conflation to insinuate transphobia as an ad hominem.

You do realise your post as a reply to my post makes absolutely no sense at all?

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

That is a really weird way to view sexuality, Darat. A male who has sex with other males would, at the very least, be considered bisexual by pretty much anyone. What they want to call themselves is irrelevant. Sexuality isn't a matter of what word one identifies with, it's a matter of the sex to which one is attracted.

If it weren't, then the eighties would have been rather different - all those gay men could have just identified as straight and kept on sleeping with men... and nobody would beat them up for it, because they were "straight".

You yourself are gay. Does that mean that you have a sexual orientation toward the male half of the species? Or does it mean you just like the label but you really dig p-in-v sex all day every day?

Let's not get so wrapped up in playing word games that we forget that there are actual, real meanings behind them.

The “men who sex with men” i.e. those who do not identify as gay or bisexual or homosexual is a real group. It was AIDS that revealed this group, they were initially “missed” in the communication about the risks and prevention because those messages and actions were aimed at homosexual and bisexual men (for instance giving out free condoms in gay bars and clubs) and since these men do not consider themselves homosexual or bisexual they missed out on the messages and the actions. It is anything but “playing word games” it is about real life risk and death.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Well... I do think that their objection was to those who have been conflating drag performers with transgender identified males, and using that conflation to insinuate transphobia as an ad hominem.

I was just trying to differentiate between males who put on femininity as a matter of performative "dress up" from those who are hoping to be subjected to the norms of femininity full time, 24/7. In retrospect, adding that level of nuance probably wasn't worth it.

[Upchurch]

I will go all the way back to my first post in this thread, from before it was this thread, and make n amendment.

Originally Posted by Upchurch

I think the difference is that drag shows are not inherently misogynistic. If anything, they make more fun of men than women.

I think the difference is that drag shows are not, within the greater western cultural context, considered misogynistic whereas blackface is definitely considered racist.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

I will go all the way back to my first post in this thread, from before it was this thread, and make n amendment.


I think the difference is that drag shows are not, within the greater western cultural context, considered misogynistic whereas blackface is definitely considered racist.

Words with no meaning.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by lionking

Words with no meaning.

Which one don't you understand?

[Rolfe]

Considered by whom, though. A lot of people do consider drag shows to be misogynistic, while clearly some people do not. I don't recognise this "greater western cultural context" thing. At various points in this same cultural context all sorts of things were considered to be just fine and jolly good fun, which were later recognised as offensive to a particular group of people.

I thought the point of the thread was to discuss whether drag shows are moving from the "jolly good fun" context towards being recognised as offensive to women. Saying "lots of people think it's all fine" is just begging the question.

[Matthew Best]

The thread seems to be asking the question "why is drag thought not to be misogynistic, while blackface is thought to be racist?"; and the answer is "because drag shows are not considered misogynistic whereas blackface is definitely considered racist".

Glad we got that sorted out, then.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Considered by whom, though. A lot of people do consider drag shows to be misogynistic, while clearly some people do not. I don't recognise this "greater western cultural context" thing.

Funny that you should put "a lot" and "some" in the places that you have. I would have guessed it was the other way around based on personal experience. I've not heard hard numbers either way.

Originally Posted by Rolfe

At various points in this same cultural context all sorts of things were considered to be just fine and jolly good fun, which were later recognised as offensive to a particular group of people.

Sure. Context always matters. Today give or take 50 years, blackface is nearly universally seen as racist. Drag being a form of misogyny does not have nearly the same level of universality.

Originally Posted by Rolfe

I thought the point of the thread was to discuss whether drag shows are moving from the "jolly good fun" context towards being recognised as offensive to women. Saying "lots of people think it's all fine" is just begging the question.

This thread was split from a different one. It has no explicit purpose other than, apparently, being too off-topic from the original.

That being said, do "lots of people drag shows to be misogynistic"? What are "lots"?

I did a quick search to see who were going to drag shows. It is, admittedly, not a simple search since RuPaul's TV show dominates the results. Take that out and I started getting drag racing, like with cars. Best source I found was this paper published in 2022: AUDIENCE DIVERSITY AND WELL-BEING AT UK DRAG EVENTS (PDF warning).

It's only one study with a meh collection method, so take that for what it's worth. They report 60+% female drag show attendance. Again, not the best source, but it is at least a data point.

[Rolfe]

Should someone maybe take a vote? Perhaps commission a properly-weighted opinion poll? Even then, one would need sequential polls over quite a few years to see whether there was actually a significant shift in public opinion.

It probably depends on the nature of your acquaintance. I certainly know a lot of people who think that many modern drag acts are offensive to women. Fewer who think it's all just good clean fun.

[TomB]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Should someone maybe take a vote? Perhaps commission a properly-weighted opinion poll? Even then, one would need sequential polls over quite a few years to see whether there was actually a significant shift in public opinion.

It probably depends on the nature of your acquaintance. I certainly know a lot of people who think that many modern drag acts are offensive to women. Fewer who think it's all just good clean fun.

It might depend on the act.
I think there are drag acts that many would find offensive.
I also think that there are drag acts that many of those same people would not find offensive.

It also might depend on a person's position on other topics.
A person who was against homosexuality might be anti-drag because of the relationship with homosexuality rather than the actual content of a drag act.
Similar with the trans-issue.

I actually never heard drag as being misogynistic until it came up in trans conversations. Not saying it hasn't, but it had never crossed my mind before. I suspect a lot of people never considered the issue before encountering it similarly.

I know my wife never thought about it like that. She used to bartend in a club in Chicago that did drag shows back in the 80s. Mostly, she remembers sharing makeup tips.

[Rolfe]

It's true there are different sort of drag acts, and some are not really offensive. I mentioned much earlier in the thread that I very much enjoyed Hinge and Brackett, and would have enjoyed the act just as much if it had been two women performing it.

I also follow Le Gateau Chocolat on Twitter because I like some of his work quite a lot, though it's possible he might do other stuff that would change my opinion of him.

But some of it is horribly, and intentionally, offensive. I have asked myself, would I give up Hinge and Brackett and Le Gateau Chocolat if that were necessary to rid the world of the horrible drag acts? Maybe I would.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Best source I found was this paper published in 2022: AUDIENCE DIVERSITY AND WELL-BEING AT UK DRAG EVENTS (PDF warning).

It's only one study with a meh collection method, so take that for what it's worth. They report 60+% female drag show attendance. Again, not the best source, but it is at least a data point.

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Perhaps commission a properly-weighted opinion poll? Even then, one would need sequential polls over quite a few years to see whether there was actually a significant shift in public opinion.

uh, yeah. Weird that no one thought about having people fill out a questionnaire about themselves and their experiences going to drag shows to your suggestion just now, right? Maybe they could do it formally and publish an academic paper on the subject.