<<

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE

Drag : Re-Envisioning the Meaning of Family and Community

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements

For the degree of Master of Arts in Sociology

By

Andrea Montes Alvarado

August 2017

SIGNATURE PAGE

The thesis of Andrea Montes Alvarado is approved:

______Lauren McDonald, Ph.D. Date

______Michael Carter, Ph.D. Date

______Moshoula Capous-Desyllas, Ph.D., Chair Date

California State University, Northridge

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to first thank my mother, Luisa Maria Alvarado, and my brother,

Geovanni Lopez, for inspiring me and supporting my academic career. They have sacrificed so much over the years to allow me to reach my goals and for that, I want to thank them. Their guidance and support have helped me become the person I am today. I also want to thank my brother for introducing me to at a very young age. His strength inspires me every day.

Secondly, I would like to thank the Sociology graduate program at California

State University Northridge for allowing me the honor to learn from such amazing faculty and helping me become the academic I am today. The faculty has taught me so much about sociology and who I am as a sociologist. They have helped me cultivate my skills and focus my interests. I want to specifically thank Dr. Amy Denissen for mentoring me since I began the program and providing me with a model for who I want to become. The way Dr. Amy Denissen talked about my thesis project with such excitement inspired me. She was such an amazing and passionate professor. I am so happy I was able to complete the thesis project we started together, but I am incredibly saddened that she was unable to see it completed. I am forever grateful to have meet such an amazing human being and I hope I am making her proud.

Thirdly, I would like to thank my fellow graduate students for keeping me grounded throughout this process. I could not have done it without all my friends in the program. I want to specifically thank my cohort member Jennifer for keeping me company during all our late nights writing papers and finishing our finals. Jen kept me grounded all throughout this process and for that, I would like to thank them. I would also

iii

like to thank Marilyn for being one of the most supportive people I have ever had the pleasure of meeting. She was always there for me and willing to go to lunch with me when I needed to talk. I wholeheartedly believe Marilyn was an instrumental person in me completing my thesis since she allowed me to call her every time I panicked over my thesis. Lastly, I would like to thank Karen for always being there for me even though we were not in the program at the same time. She was so supportive throughout my thesis process and continues to mentor me as I move forward in my career. Ultimately, I would like to thank the graduate students and faculty at CSUN for helping me grow as a person and academic.

Fourthly, I would like to thank all the individuals who allowed me the privilege to interview them and share their stories in my thesis. They opened up their lives to someone they did not know and for that, I am forever grateful. I could not have done this without them. Additionally, I want to thank the participant Geovanni for inspiring my interest in drag dynamics. The way he presents himself in drag is mesmerizing and his drag house inspired my focus on drag houses. I would also like to thank my brother’s friend outside of the drag community for being so willing and helpful in recruiting drag queens to my study. I am humbled by all the help I have received.

Fifthly, I would like to thank my thesis committee members Dr. Lauren

McDonald and Dr. Michael Carter. Dr. McDonald and Dr. Carter stepped up for me and opened themselves up to learn a topic foreign to their areas of interest. Dr. McDonald went above and beyond in order to help me complete my thesis, from looking up references to letting me sit in her office venting about my thesis experiences. I cannot thank her enough for that. She made my thesis stronger and the process easier. I would

iv

then like to thank Dr. Carter for being part of my thesis committee and being one of the most dedicated mentors I have had. He is one of the more influential professors and mentors I have had in my sociological journey. He opened up his door to me since I began the program and he is dedicated to helping me reach my future goals.

Lastly, I would like to thank my thesis committee chair Dr. Moshoula Capous-

Desyllas for giving me the chance to pursue this research study. I cannot thank her enough for going out on a limb for me and becoming my thesis chair. As my thesis chair, she encouraged me to look at my thesis in different ways that made it stronger. She has supported me immensely throughout my thesis process, specifically when I felt overwhelmed. Her kindness and dedication to my thesis humbles me and reminds me of what privilege I have had to work with her so closely. I will always be grateful to her for her guidance and support.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Signature Page ...... ii Acknowledgement ...... iii Abstract ...... ix INTRODUCTION ...... 1 Locating Myself ...... 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 5 Challenging Gender Norms ...... 5 Audience Participation and Perception ...... 6 Drag ...... 8 Use of Language ...... 10 Motivation into Drag...... 13 Reproduction of Normative Gender...... 14 Drag Kings and Challenging Normative Gender ...... 15 Drag Houses and Families ...... 17 Ballroom Culture ...... 18 Alternative Families and Kinship Literature...... 21 Procreation and Childrearing ...... 23 Laws and Regulations ...... 24 Chosen Families ...... 25 Incorporation of the Literature ...... 27 THEORETICAL APPROACH ...... 29 Doing Gender ...... 29 Theory ...... 31 Theory Incorporation ...... 33 METHODOLOGY ...... 34 Purpose of the Study ...... 34 Research Questions ...... 34 Case Study ...... 34 Source of Data...... 35 Qualitative Interviews ...... 36 Recruitment Method ...... 37 vi

Ethical Considerations ...... 38 Sample Demographics ...... 39 Portrait of the Participants ...... 42 FINDINGS ...... 44 Participants’ Definitions of Drag ...... 44 Mainstream Views of Drag ...... 45 Defining Drag ...... 45 Identity Negotiation ...... 49 Drag as a Tool of Resistance ...... 49 Telling Others ...... 53 Drag Identity Salience and Commitment ...... 54 Drag House and Families ...... 55 Defining Drag House ...... 55 Benefits of Drag House ...... 58 Introduction to Drag House Members ...... 60 Responsibilities of Drag Mothers ...... 62 Representation of the Mother and the House ...... 65 Distinguishing Between Drag Families ...... 67 Families of Origin ...... 69 LGBTQ+ Community ...... 71 Building Community ...... 71 Voice of the Community ...... 75 Biases in the Community ...... 76 DISCUSSION ...... 79 Transforming Identity as a Source of Empowerment and Resistance ...... 80 Drag Identity Prioritization ...... 82 Drag Families and Houses as a Process of Negotiation ...... 82 Welcoming Environment of the LGTBQ+ Community ...... 88 Collective Meaning Making using a Normative Terms...... 89 “Queering” Drag ...... 90 LIMITATIONS ...... 92 AREAS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH ...... 94 REFERENCES ...... 97 APPENDIX A: DRAG HOUSE/FAMILY INTERVIEW GUIDE QUESTION ...... 102 vii

APPENDIX B: INTERVIEW GUIDE QUESTION ...... 106 APPENDIX C: DEMOGRAPHIC DATA FORM ...... 109 APPENDIX D: CODE GROUPS ...... 110 APPENDIX E: INTERVIEW IDENTITY CODES ...... 111 APPENDIX F: INTERVIEW DRAG HOUSE/FAMILY CODES ...... 112 APPENDIX G: INTERVIEW FAMILY OF ORIGIN CODES ...... 115 APPENDIX H: INTERVIEW COMMUNITY CODES ...... 116 APPENDIX I: INTERVIEW WORK/JOB CODES...... 117 APPENDIX J: INTERVIEW VIEWS OF DRAG CODES ...... 118 APPENDIX K: INTERVIEW DEFINITION CODES ...... 119

viii

ABSTRACT

DRAG QUEENS:

RE-ENVISIONING THE MEANING OF FAMILY AND COMMUNITY

By

Andrea Montes Alvarado

Master of Arts in Sociology

Using social constructivist and deconstructive theoretical perspectives and a case study methodological approach, this study examines drag queen’s negotiation of their intersecting identities in the community and explores how families of choice are constructed within a marginalized community. Three main findings are identity negotiation (micro-level analysis), drag families and houses (mesolevel analysis), and

LGBTQ+ community (macro-level analysis). The findings demonstrate how drag queens negotiate their intersecting identities to situate themselves within the LGBTQ+ community and how they use normative terms associated with the family to construct their families of choice. The three findings produced six discussion sections: (1) drag as a source of empowerment and resistance; (2) drag as a prioritized identity; (3) drag houses’ reproduction of heteronormative familial roles and deconstruction of those roles; (4) the cycle of welcoming new members to the drag community; (5) the deconstruction of a normative term (sister) through the collective meaning making of the drag community; and (6) the “queering” of drag by Faux queens and Bio queens. Ultimately, this study aimed to bring greater insight into the interpersonal relations and lived experiences of

ix

drag queens while furthering the knowledge of families of choice within a marginalized group in society.

x

INTRODUCTION

In our heteronormative and gender dichotomous society, drag queens and drag queen houses (defined below) represent a potential disruption to normative understandings of the family, gender roles, and community building. Scholars typically define drag queens as biological men who dress and perform as women and who identify as members of the , , Bisexual, , or Queer (LGBTQ+)1 community (Hopkins 2004; Horowitz 2013; Egner and Maloney 2016; Taylor and Rupp

2004). Drag performances predominately consist of drag queens lip synching or singing and emceeing in front of an audience at a gay club (Barrett 1998; Egner and Maloney

2016). Drag queens embody a number of performative identities in their drag routines, like female impersonators (performing musical numbers while trying to pass as a women), celebrity impersonators (dressing and singing like a specific artist), or campy queens (some camp queens do not “try to look like a woman”) (Rupp and Taylor

2003:32). Drag queens also use wigs, padding, and clothing to create their looks for their drag performances (Bailey 2013). The literature on drag queens mainly focuses on how drag queens either disrupt or replicate stereotypical views of gender and sexuality

(Berkowitz and Belgrave 2010; Taylor and Rupp 2005). Current literature on drag queens has extended the subject to include the complexities of becoming a drag queen, the potential rewards associated with being a drag queen, and incorporated other branches of drag performances like drag kings (Berkowitz and Belgrave 2010; Hopkins 2004;

Horowitz 2013; Rupp et al. 2010; Taylor and Rupp 2005). However, there is limited

1 The (+) will be used to include all those who fall within the LGBTQ community, but are not directly referenced in the abbreviation.

1

literature on drag queen house dynamics (Arnold and Bailey 2009; Bailey 2013; Nepean

2004; Rupp and Taylor 2003; Way 2014)

Drag houses are familial structures based on support (Arnold and Bailey 2009;

Bailey 2013; Rupp and Taylor 2003). Drag houses are chosen relationships of a drag mother (a more experienced drag queen) and a drag daughter (a newer drag queen) that mimic normative family practices. House is a figurative term that embodies a kinship relationship, rather than a physical location (Arnold and Bailey 2009; Bailey 2013).

However, some drag members do live in the same apartment or physical house (Bailey

2013). Drag houses are kinship relationships based on support and connectedness, rather than romantic relationships (Rupp and Taylor 2003).

This study aimed to provide greater understanding into the lived experiences of drag queens while furthering the knowledge of how non-biological families and/or families of choice are constructed within a marginalized group. Additionally, this study assesses the way drag queens build community and place themselves within the larger

LGBTQ+ community. This study draws on queer theory and doing gender to understand how drag queens both deconstruct normative gender and family roles as well as construct new social identities through their creation of families of choice. Using participants’ narratives, a case study methodological approach is employed to gain insight into how drag queens construct roles and identities through family relationships.

Locating Myself

The topic of this study stems from my personal experience with drag queens since

I was a child. My brother, who identifies as a gay man, introduced me to drag queens and drag culture at an early age. I watched RuPaul’s as a child and then graduated

2

to watching RuPaul’s Drag Race. The television shows partially framed my informal knowledge and understanding of drag queens and their culture. My informal knowledge also comes from my personal interactions and relationships with drag queens. Because of my brother’s insider status in the LGBT community, I have met many drag queens over the years. As I got to know drag queens outside of their performances and drag, I realized their experiences and negotiations of their identities in everyday life were sometimes contrary to what was being produced on the television show. Therefore, my personal experience with drag queens and drag culture over the years was the motivation behind my need to study and share drag queens’ lived experiences and construction of their identities with others.

Since I do not identify as a drag queen, nor as a male or homosexual, my outsider perspective proved to be both an asset and challenge when interacting with study participants and analyzing the data. My outsider perspective allowed me to see the narratives without any insider biases that may have compelled me create a favorable portrayal of the community. As a consumer of drag culture, my knowledge of the terms associated with the community allowed me to understand drag jargon and expressions.

However, I did ask the participants to define and explain all the terms they used during the interview to protect against me making any assumptions of their experiences. The participants’ definitions and understandings of drag thus frame the findings of this study and are overviewed in the Findings section. Additionally, I took a semi-structured approach to the in-depth interviews to allow the participants to direct the interview in a way that best represents their experiences. Nevertheless, my outsider perspective did

3

prove to be a barrier when recruiting and interacting with participants as discussed in my

Methods section as well as Limitation section.

4

LITERATURE REVIEW

The majority of the literature on drag queens focuses on their potential disruption or replication of normative views of gender and sexuality (Berkowitz and Belgrave 2010;

Taylor and Rupp 2005). As noted by Berkowtiz and Belgrave (2010) and Taylor and

Rupp (2005), the limited research on drag queens that was published prior to the 1990’s viewed drag queens as deviants and focused on the negative aspects of their lives.

However, the current literature also focuses on the complexities of becoming a drag queen and the potential rewards that drag queens receive from participating in marginalized communities (Berkowitz and Belgrave 2010; Hopkins 2004; Taylor and

Rupp 2005). The literature on drag queens has also extended into literature about drag kings2 and their similarity to drag queens in how they challenge normative gender roles

(Horowitz 2013; Kumbier 2003; Rupp et al. 2010). Therefore, most research on drag has predominantly explored the disruptive and reproductive aspects of gender performances by drag queens and drag kings, but has not focused on how these individual construct and create new family forms in their everyday lives via their link to the drag community.

Challenging Gender Norms

The main literature on drag queens focuses on their ability to disrupt heteronormative and dichotomous understandings of gender and sexuality in their performances. In the literature, drag is understood as a transgressive action that actively challenges conventional gender norms (Berkowitz and Belgrave 2010; Taylor and Rupp

2005). Drag performers represent a space outside of the normative understanding of gender as dichotomous and highlight the active construction of gender and sexuality in

2 Drag kings are women who perform in drag as men. 5

their performances and lives (Egner and Maloney 2016; Horowitz 2013). Drag queen performances challenge normative views of gender as they disrupt the “nature” claim of gender and sexuality through the emphasis of their male gay identity even while actively in drag (Rupp et al. 2010). Hence, drag queens are considered gender fluid, not embodying conventional views of the female or male gender, as they have a male identity out of drag, but have a feminine identity while performing (Egner and Maloney 2016).

Furthermore, drag queens often engage in explicit disruption of the illusion of femininity and “trouble” gender as they strip and expose their bodies while performing (Egner and

Maloney 2016; Taylor and Rupp 2006). This is achieved through drag queens’ representation of “gender-queer” bodies and the fluidity of gender in their bodies that do not often have visible female or male sex organs when they are on stage stripping (Taylor and Rupp 2006). The removal of their clothes introduces a non-gendered body that the audience must become accustomed to as the performance continues. Therefore, drag queens represent a disruption to normative essentialist views of gender and sexuality through their performances and visual representations of non-gendered bodies (Egner and

Maloney 2016; Taylor and Rupp 2006).

Audience Participation and Perception

The audience members become an important aspect of the potential gender and sexual fluidity of participants, and the subversive aspect of drag performances as they perceive and interrupt drag performances (Egner and Maloney 2016). Drag performances make audience members aware of the marginalization of LGBTQ members using camp performances (Niles 2004). For instance, “straight boys” who attend drag shows often find themselves feeling like social minorities in these situations as drag shows are

6

predominantly conducted in gay bars or LGBTQ normative spaces (Schacht 2004). The experiences of young heterosexual men are important in understanding the disruption of gender in drag performances. The young men’s reconceptualization of their heterosexual male status in a LGBTQ environment allows them to explore the social construction of gender and sexuality. Moreover, heterosexual young men have a understanding of

“sexist crap” that women experience as and some drag queens intentionally make comments towards men to make fun of them (Schacht 2004). Therefore, audience members’ perceptions of drag performance demonstrate the potential disruption of gender and sexuality as audience members begin to question the “naturalness” of gender and sexuality.

Drag queens have been found to get aggressive with audience members during their performance to demonstrate to them the fragility of gender norms (Egner and

Maloney 2016). In areas where homosexuality is viewed as deviant, some drag queens often feel pressure to break normative views of gender in order to educate and disrupt the audience members’ understanding of gender and sexuality (Egner and Maloney 2016;

Rupp et al. 2010). Hence, some scholars view drag shows as a “genre of political theater” that educates heterosexual audiences and members of the homosexual community, while also empowering participants (Taylor and Rupp 2005). Drag shows can be seen as political, especially when drag queens directly reference their intentions to challenge gender and sexuality (Taylor and Rupp 2005). For instance, when Kylie, a drag queen at

801 Cabaret in Key West, strips at the end of her set, she does so to “baffle them [audience members] and it does make them think” (Taylor and Rupp 2005: 2129).

Kylie directly references her stripping down to her underwear that does not show any

7

indicators of a gendered body, as there are no female or male sex organs visible. Kylie illustrates the kind of intentional action used by some drag queens to challenge the normative gender and sexual binaries through their performances. Therefore, drag queen performances disrupt normative views of gender and sexuality in our society, as made evident in audience members’ perception of drag performances and their critical assessment of normative understandings of gender and sexuality after attending drag shows.

Drag Identity

Some research has focused on the process of becoming a drag queen, demonstrating drag queens’ interconnection of their multiple identities (male identity, gay identity, and drag identity) and commitment to their drag persona. Drag queens are often introduced to drag through gender transgression as children; then use socially acceptable masquerades (Halloween) to dress as women and explore their identity through their sexuality (Hopkins 2004; Taylor and Rupp 2005). Thereafter, drag queens immerse themselves within the community and perform in talent shows and/or contests that allow them to explore their drag persona (Hopkins 2004). The persona a drag queen adopts in her performances represents the complexity of identities in drag as the performer identity, their drag name, is referred to in the third person (Egner and Maloney

2016). Speaking about their drag persona in the third person can be viewed as

“establishing the character’s legitimacy as a person” (Egner and Maloney 2016: 894).

The development of the drag persona helps drag queens negotiate and understand their self in relation to their intersecting identities as a gay man preforming femininity in drag.

Drag queen personas also demonstrate the stylization of the self that disrupts normative

8

understandings of the single self and incorporates multiple identities (Sandeep 2004).

Therefore, drag queens’ negotiation of their drag persona also forces them to understand the effects of their other identities in relation to their performance.

In the literature, drag identity is viewed through a gendered lens that overlooks the other identities that drag queens hold which affect and influence their performances and experiences as drag queens. Recently, scholars have studied drag queen performances in accordance with race to understand the complexities of race and gender within drag performances. Gender cannot exist without understanding how race, class, and sexuality intersect as all these identities inform the performance of an individual

(Rhyne 2004). The celebrity impersonation aspect of drag queen performances demonstrates the racial crossing of their drag persona as they impersonate celebrities with different racial backgrounds and tie aspects of the celebrity persona to their own persona

(Horowitz 2013).

Specifically, the camp aspect of drag has been understood as a political lens from which to see the intersections of race, class, and gender performance as they relate to different identities in gay culture (Rhyne 2004; Rupp et al. 2010). Through his focus on white drag queens and transformative use of class performances, Rhyne (2004) exemplifies the notion of camp as political. Rhyne (2004) postulates that white drag queens use camp as a class performance because camp uses the dominant ideology of naturalized whiteness to expose it as performative. Although white, upper-middle-class, gay male discourse dominates gay life, camp is seen as potentially resisting normative conversations of race within the community (Horowitz 2013). Therefore, the incorporation of multiple identities when understanding drag performances bring insight

9

into the disruptive nature of drag queens from essentialist views of race, gender, and sexuality.

Use of Language

The use of language is pivotal to understanding drag queens’ interactions and identity processes as language demonstrates the complexities of the identities they use in their performances (gender, ethnicity, class, and sexuality), drag culture, and identity salience3 (Barrett 1998; Childs and Van Herk 2014; Mann 2011). Language scholars have started to focus on the relationship between identity and desire when studying queer linguistics and the negation of their intersubjective identities (Bucholtz and Hall 2004).

For instance, Barrett (1998) studied drag queens’ use of language in their performances and found that they switch between different identifiable languages to denaturalize their different identities: race, gender, and sexuality. Specifically, Barrett (1998) found that drag queens’ use of African American English, white feminine linguistic terms, and gay men identifying terms within their performances, denaturalized their identities. Drag queen denaturalize their identities as they perform different traits associated with gender, ethnicity, class and sexuality in their performances and demonstrate how those identities do not reflection an “authentic” identity (Barrett 1998). Barrett (1998) postulated that drag queens thus deconstruct and create their identities in their performances using multiple linguistic forms, often unknowingly. Barrett’s (1998) findings mirror scholars’ understandings that some drag queens use stereotypes as a tool to challenge prevailing ideologies of gender and sexuality (Mann 2011).

3 Childs and Van Herk (2014) refer to identity salience as the importance and frequency in which an identity will be evoked in a given social interaction. 10

Mann (2011) furthered Barrett’s work on the variation of language to frame drag queens’ use of language in his study of Suzanne. Suzanne is a European-American drag queen hostess whom Mann (2011) found used language as “resources to negotiate aspects of her character’s racial and gendered identities, which frequently blur the lines between female and male, feminine and masculine, and Black and White” as she interacts with the audience and style switches between different from of drag queen speech (Mann

2011:795-9). Suzanne’s use of language to blur the lines between gender and sex is evident in her use of stereotypical masculine forms (like expletives) while juxtaposing these curse words with her exaggerated feminine appearance (Mann 2011). Suzanne exemplifies this use of masculine expletive as she heavily uses body part expletives (“ass, cock, pussy, tit”) in her performance that is associated with masculinity (Mann

2011:802). Suzanne uses gender-bending linguistics as she pronounces “cocktail,” with an emphasis on “cock” and use of cocktail generally associated with women’s speech, to play with the two genders’ linguistic patterns (Mann 2011:804). This disruption of gendered language, although not prominent, demonstrates the underlying disruptions that drag queens’ performances fully overhauling all aspects of normative gender roles.

Suzanne’s use of the word “bitch” provides another example of drag queens’ potential reproduction of gender dynamics as “bitch” is used normatively as a derogatory term for women or gay men (Mann 2011). However, the gay community has adopted the term “bitch” as a positive way of addressing one another. Mann (2011) argues that

Suzanne’s use of the term to the audience is a form of welcoming them to the community, since it is a term reserved for the in-group (gay male community). Use of the term “bitch” presents another interesting disruption of gender dynamics as the gay

11

community has transformed the term. This demonstrates the fragility of traits associated with normative gender dynamics and actively tries to take away the oppressive connotation associated with these words. Therefore, drag queens’ use of language demonstrates their potential disruption of normative views of gender and sexuality as they blur the lines between speech that are typically associated with masculinity and femininity. In doing so, they reconstruct and redefine oppressive terms.

Childs and Van Herk (2014) further found that language demonstrates the complexities of identity performances in their study of young women and local drag queens in Newfoundland English spoken in Canada. They found that individuals used local-ness4 grammatical features and “non-standard verbal –s” to show group, community, and identity salience (635). The local-ness grammatical features allowed individuals to play a role in identity creation as they use the socially negative meaning associated with the speech to modernize and positively associate it with the community

(Childs and Van Herk 2014). Childs and Van Herk (2014) found that core drag queens used local grammatical features more than their fringe drag queen counterparts, illustrating the performative and salient aspect of language as a tool for innovation from key group leaders. The drag queens’ use of the stigmatized local speech positively demonstrated how the connotation of the words changed as group members renegotiated their meaning. Childs and Van Herk (2014) also found that the use of local grammatical features increased as they moved closer to urban areas of Newfoundland, Canada. Hence, the use of language among drag queens and members of the LGBTQ+ community is

4 Negatively associated grammatical speech 12

important to understand as language demonstrates how drag queens build community and negotiate their identities within their performances.

Motivation into Drag

Research also focuses on the power and rewards that drag brings to the performers through its transformative effect and the situational power some receive while performing (Berkowitz and Belgrave 2010). Drag gives participants the ability to obtain status and empowerment within the community through their transformative ability to enter another gendered character (Berkowitz and Belgrave 2010; Hopkins 2004). The theatrical identity that drag queens take on provides them with a freedom to experiment with different or unconventional talents they could otherwise not do outside of drag performance (Berkowitz and Belgrave 2010; Hopkins 2004; Taylor and Rupp 2005).

Their drag persona becomes a different identity in and of itself as drag performers construct a character they can maneuver during their performances (Hopkins 2004). Their drag persona is coupled with a pseudonym that also contributes to a sense of empowerment as it creates a barrier between them and their drag persona (Berkowitz and

Belgrave 2010). Their performances are seen as another form of empowerment as drag queens are allowed to experience themselves freely in a generally safe space. However, the power that comes from the performance is often felt solely by successful drag queens5

(Berkowitz and Belgrave 2010; Hopkins 2004). The successful drag queen obtains a celebrity status that gives them a situational power over their audience and other community members (Berkowitz and Belgrave 2010). This illustrates the potential

5 Successful drag queens are queens that are known in the drag community or larger society based on their accomplishments in competitions or television. 13

empowerment and rewards that drag queens can receive from their involvement in drag.

It also reflects the dichotomous nature of this marginalized identity.

Reproduction of Normative Gender

Although scholars often view drag queens as disrupting normative gender dynamics, drag queens have been criticized for their reproduction and maintenance of normative views of gender and sexuality. Drag queens have been perceived by some as misogynistic and antifeminist, as they are viewed as mocking women and femininity

(Bishop et al. 2014). Drag queens are also seen as exaggerating femininity as their performances oftentimes demonstrate the socially constructed notion of dichotomous gender (Sandeep 2004). The critique of drag queens as mocking women and femininity is visible as drag queens use normative gender roles associated with femininity. They also perform as women to entertain the audience through satire and jokes. Some scholars have even compared drag performances to doing blackface, as drag queens are physically altering their faces to exaggerate feminine traits (Bishop et al. 2014).

Other scholars view drag queens’ appropriation of “gender displays associated with traditional femininity and institutionalized heterosexuality” as a reinforcement of dominant assumptions of gender presentation and sexual desire, since they are not breaking the dichotomous view of gender, rather they are exaggerating it (Rupp et al.

2010:xx). In addition, drag queens are viewed as embodying masculine privilege even though they perform femininity, because they have the privilege to remove their feminine appearance once they are done performing (Rupp et al. 2010). Therefore, drag queens are not solely viewed as providing a disruption of normative gender views, since some

14

aspects of their performances are viewed as misogynistic and antifeminist, thus they are perceived by some as mocking women and femininity.

Drag Kings and Challenging Normative Gender

Drag kings provide a critique of drag queens’ disruption of gender and sexuality as drag kings are actively performing to disrupt normative views of gender and sexuality.

Drag kings’ performances are often viewed as more critically intentional in their challenges than drag queen performances. Drag kings are often biological females who dress and perform as men (Horowitz 2013; Rupp et al. 2010). In contrast to drag queens, literature on drag kings’ focuses on their performances and the intentional ways that they challenge our dichotomous view of gender and sexual identity (Rupp et al. 2010). Drag kings’ performances are about , genderqueer, and fluid identities that intentionally “critique binary categories of masculinity/femininity and gay/straight”

(Rupp et al. 2010:279). Thus, drag kings actively disrupt normative views of gender and sexuality as their performances are inspired by this critique of gender binaries.

Drag kings specifically associated with Disposable Boy Toys6 demonstrate a collective political consciousness and a theatrical sophistication in their performances, as their first members were largely graduate students with a feminist and queer theory background (Rupp et al. 2010). Hence, drag kings’ performances are informed by a theoretical and political stance, a lens that most drag queens do not embody due to their unfamiliarity with these theatrical frames. Drag kings within this venue openly discuss gender theory in order to challenge normative views of gender and its essentialism (Rupp et al. 2010). Drag kings go as far as to refer to their own gender presentation off stage

6 Disposable Boy Toys is a troupe in Santa Barbara 15

using performance language to disrupt the natural view of their own gender outside of drag (Rupp et al. 2010).

Drag kings demonstrate their social constructivist approach to gender as they use performance language; language that describes gender as a performance that one does to accomplish a certain outcome. Drag kings use performance language when discussing their gender with others. Furthermore, Kumbier (2003), who performs as a drag king and

Bio queen7, also exemplifies a politicized identity in her Bio queen performances.

Kumbier (2003) performs in a group called “The Pearl Girls” that she views as not measuring to a cultural standard of femininity, but rather takes those standards and challenges them. As a Bio queen, Kumbier views her performances as a way of using the same tools needed for cultural standards of femininity. At the same time, Kumbier challenges them as she “uses symbols that pop culture creates for the expression of the desires that pop culture does not anticipate, endorse, or provide space for so-called glam”

(Kumbier 2003:196). Kumbier (2003) perceives her use of gender behaviors as allowing her to “access a specific dimension of my gendered subjectivity; to claim a femininity and embody a sexual persona that most women are denied, and that I had denied myself for most of my life” (196). From this perspective, Kumbier’s uses drag to represent a form of femininity not allotted to women in normative society demonstrates the disruptive nature of drag when used as an active challenge to normative gender views.

Therefore, drag kings actively challenge the gender binary and dichotomous view of sexuality through their performance as men and as women.

7 A Bio queen is a woman who was born a female, who performs as a drag queen (Kumbier 2003). 16

Drag Houses and Families

The literature on drag houses is extremely limited and predominantly concentrates on studies about Ballroom culture. Although the drag houses in this study are not found in the Ballroom community, they still have many similarities to those found in Balls. In their study of drag queens in the 801 cabaret, Rupp and Taylor (2003) found that the drag queens in the 801 considered themselves a drag family. Rupp and Taylor (2003) situated the drag queens’ experiences of family in their often strained relationships with their families of origin. They found that a majority of the participants had positive relationships with their mothers, but presumably they had negative relationships with their extended families. Interestingly, the drag family at the 801 consisted of other drag queens in the community and bar regulars. Sushi and Kylie’s relationship grounded the family as they had known each other since they were young. Rupp and Taylor (2003) found that some of the drag family members often lived together in houses or apartments.

The house mother, Sushi, aspired to own a physical house where her dag family could live. The family often gathered together to celebrate special occasions and rallied together when something happened to one of them. Rupp and Taylor (2003) found that the 801 cabaret family was grounded in their shared identities and work. Drag house relationships were also created at the 801 cabaret through mentorship relationships. 801 drag queens credited the person that helped them when they entered the drag community as their drag mother. Therefore, Rupp and Taylor’s (2003) synopsis of the 801 drag family demonstrated the complexities of how drag families and houses are created and maintained within the drag community.

17

Ballroom Culture

Bailey’s (2013) study on how Black Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender people perform gender, create kinship, and community within the Ballroom culture of

Detroit is pivotal in understanding drag houses. Ballroom culture began 50 years ago in

Harlem, New York (Arnold & Bailey 2009). It is predominately made up of African

American and Latino/a people in major cities across the United States (Arnold & Bailey

2009). Bailey (2013) found that the Ballroom community was racially and ethnically homogenous and its members were predominantly lower class. Bailey (2013) also stated that the Ballroom scene has also become younger as youth try to find families outside of their families of origin that have rejected them. Ballroom culture, also called “house/,” consists of three main aspects: competitive Balls (often produced by the house): the gender-sex system that informs member roles; and kinship structures (houses)

(Arnold and Bailey 2009; Bailey 2013:4).

The first main aspect of Ballroom culture are Balls. Balls are runway competitions with different categories that revolve around performative gender, sexuality, vogue8, theatrical performances, and the presentation of fashion (Arnold and Bailey

2009). Ball competition categories assess the participant’s realness, performance, fashion, and body presentation (Bailey 2013). It should be noted that Balls are not the same as drag shows since the former is based on runway competitions and the latter is based on musical performances.

The second main aspect of Ballroom culture is the gender-sex system that informs members’ roles. Bailey (2013) found that Ballroom members’ identities are based on

8 Vogue or “voguing” is a type of dance created in the Ballroom community focused on hand movements (Bailey 2013). 18

gender-sex systems. The gender-sex system provides members with a wide range of gender and sexual identities that are often not accepted “outside” of Ballroom culture.

The Ballroom gender-sex system consistent of six different identities: Butch Queens (gay men); queens (male to female transgender individuals); Butch Queen Up in Drag

(gay men that dress and perform as women); Butches (female to male transgender individuals); Men (males born as males that do not identify as gay); and Women (females born as females that are straight, lesbian, or queer) (Arnold and Bailey 2009:5; Bailey

2013:38). Bailey (2013) highlights that Butch Queens Up in Drag are seen as having male privilege since they live their lives as males (Bailey 2013:51). Although the gender- sex system provides Ballroom members with more gender and sex categories, it still relies on normative understandings of gender in its establishment of member roles and possible identities. Bailey (2013) argued that identities in the gender-sex system are fixed and are sanctioned by the community. Bailey also found that the gender-sex system organized the roles in drag houses (Arnold and Bailey 2009).

The last main aspect of Ballroom culture was houses. Bailey (2013) affirmed that

Ballroom culture was rooted in houses. Houses are socially created family structures found in Ballroom culture that are mainly named after “haute couture” designers. Houses are largely figurative, with some houses actually living together in a physical “home”

(Arnold and Bailey 2009; Bailey 2013). The houses are nationwide social networks with chapters found across the country where Balls occur (Arnold and Bailey 2009). The main function of the house is to compete and produce Balls (Bailey 2013). Thus, houses are only recognized if they were a part of a Ball, or as Arnold and Bailey (2009) stated “there are no balls without houses” (3). Hence, the house gains prestige and status as house

19

members win Ball competitions, so bonds in houses are built on support and the members’ competitive drive. Furthermore, houses are understood as providing young people with “a feeling acceptance that they otherwise may not encounter in their biological families and communities of origin” (Arnold and Bailey 2009:6).

The house is led by house mothers and fathers or “platonic parents”9 (Arnold and

Bailey 2009). House mothers are predominately Femme Queens, feminine Butch Queens, and Butch Queens Up in Drag while house fathers are Butch Queens, masculine Butch

Queens, and Men (Arnold and Bailey 2009:5). Bailey (2013) postulated that houses members adopt dominant familial practices and reshape them to fit their familial structures. House parents are understood as employing five traits in their parental roles:

(1) the parent(s) must be successful ball competitors (Ball icons or legendry performers);

(2) parents acquire status from their houses, so they must recruit the best; (3) parents do not have to be older, rather they must have to have experience; (4) parents oversee all the chapters of their houses (“overall” mothers and fathers); (5) the division of labor in the houses are informed by heteronormative gender roles (Bailey 2013: 106). The latter is pivotal to understanding houses, as Bailey stressed that house mothers’ and fathers’ responsibilities mirrored domesticated notions of gender and heteronormative family division of labor (Arnold and Bailey 2009).

House mothers’ responsibilities consisted of feminized mothering (Arnold and

Bailey 2009). House mothers provided the majority of care and support to the children while often cooking and monitoring diets (gendered roles) (Arnold and Bailey 2009).

Bailey (2013) specified that since house mothers were responsible for the majority of the

9 Term coined by Bailey (2013) 20

housework, house mothers were the heads of Ballroom households. House fathers’ responsibilities were based on masculinized fathering as they were tasked with upholding the organization of the house events and reputation. House fathers also took on a mentorship role and served as authority figures (Arnold and Bailey 2009). However, house fathers were a relatively new aspect of Ballroom culture and they could be “outside of gayness” meaning they do not have to be gay men or in romantic relationships with house mothers (Bailey 2013:111). Bailey stressed that house mothers and fathers adopt normative heteronormative gender roles within their familial roles. Additionally, Bailey found that house parents assign titles to their children based on their experience and the length of time they have been in the house. House parents will call the “elder brother” of their children a Prince and the “elder sister” a Princess (Bailey 2013:118). The assignment of titles to children is another aspect of Ballroom culture houses that is not found in the drag houses in this research study. Bailey found that house sibling ties were rooted in three characteristics: (1) their coming out or joining a house together; (2) their similar Ball competition category focus; and (3) some ties were rooted in romantic or sexual relationships with their sibling or drag mothers. In Ballroom culture houses, romantic and sexual relationships between drag mothers and drag children were not taboo or uncommon. Ultimately, Bailey postulated that houses appropriate normative views of the family, gender, and sex, but that they also transform the aspects of those norms to create their kinship networks.

Alternative Families and Kinship Literature

Most sociological research on the family during most of the 20th century focused on white, heterosexual married protestant couples, and their biological children (Allen &

21

Jaramillo-Sierra, 2015; Schneider, 1997). Folgero (2008) and Weston [1991] (1997) noted in their respective work that early studies of the family relied heavily on genealogy, biology, and heterosexual procreation, hence childbearing became central to the notion of the family. However, since the 1980’s there has been a new paradigm in family studies which views families not as biological units, but instead as socially constructed and historically changing groups. As such, a growing body of literature has focused on non- traditional family forms – single parent families, step-families, extended families, transnational families, and gay families. However, the literature on LGBTQ+ kinships have been criticized for focusing predominantly on White gay and lesbian individuals

(Arnold and Bailey 2009). The literature on LGBTQ+ families revolves around same-sex couples, specifically lesbian couples’ formation of a family through childbearing (Stacey

2005). The literature on same-sex couples demonstrates an emphasis on procreation that reflects the heteronormative definition of the family that takes the form of a married couple and their children (Allen and Jaramillo-Sierra 2015; Folgero 2008; Schneider

1997). This construction of the family in same-sex couples is found to supports, as well as stresses, essentialist views of the family (Allen and Jaramillo-Sierra 2015; Folgero

2008; Schneider 1997). However, same-sex couples’ formation of families becomes disruptive to the understanding of the family as they raise children outside of heterosexual relationships, thus emphasizing the importance of social factors, like love, in creating a family (Dempsey 2010). The literature on LGBTQ+ kinships has begun to shift to focus on families of choice that are not built on romantic or sexual relationships, but rather focus on love, shared histories, and solidarity (Weston [1991] 1997). Ultimately, understanding the dynamics and creation of alternative families and kinship networks is

22

important to this study as it overviews how LGBTQ+ members build families using or disrupting heteronormative familial structures.

Procreation and Childrearing

Procreation is considered a vital part of family formation in heteronormative family schemes (Schneider 1997). Procreation “naturalizes” heterosexuality in families since same-sex couples cannot reproduce with one another. Foreign countries establish a similar essentialist understanding of gender that ties the family to “biological” characteristics like blood and genetics that limit family formation (Folgero 2008). Thus, children become vital to the legitimation and creation of a family in many countries

(Schneider 1997). Same-sex couples are viewed as having to overcome “biology” and

“nature” in order to have children, since they cannot procreate (Folgero 2008).

Overcoming “biology” reflects same sex couple’s requirement to seek a third person to provide the remaining genetic material, like an egg or sperm, for the child as one parent often provides the other genetic material (Folgero 2008:128). However, lesbian mothers and gay fathers disrupt genetic views of parenthood as gestation is not a criterion for acquiring children and their same-sex parenting has shown not to psychologically harm children (Folgero 2008).

Medicalized reproduction, like in-vitro fertilization, inherently challenges normative views of the family as it eliminates the need for a present mother and father and moves reproduction out of the privacy of the home (Levine 2008). For instance, the biological father of a lesbian-mother’s child becomes negotiable and less relevant than the biological and social mother in lesbian relationships because they often form a family outside of the biological father’s direct influence (Dempsey 2010). Same-sex parents

23

often emphasize social ties over genetic ties in order to legitimize their experiences of motherhood and fatherhood (Folgero 2008). Biological characteristics become symbolic in same-sex families as they negotiate the generativity of their children (Levine 2008).

Therefore, same-sex couples negotiate their families using the discourses of family available to them, but accommodate the discourse to reflect their families (Folgero 2008).

Laws and Regulations

Same-sex couples are at the mercy of heteronormative laws and regulations that restrict their creation of a family (Folgero 2008). For instance, same-sex couples were previously instructed to select an unmarried-partner category on the U.S. Census even if they were married in accordance with the Defense of Marriage Act that defined marriage as between a man and a woman (Baumle and Compton 2014). Hence, Baumle and

Compton (2014) found that same-sex couples were not widely accepted in the language of the U.S. Census between 2008 to 2010. Alternative families become devoid of “free choice” as governments and countries limit same-sex couples’ abilities to children and form legally acknowledged family structures (Folgero 2008). Baumle and Compton’s

(2014) study on identity and identification of LGBTQ parents with their children in the

United States Census demonstrates the complexities and limitations that alternative families have in claiming familial ties. Identification and acknowledgement of a LGBTQ parent with their child was legitimated in the Census when the child had a biological or legal relationship with their parents (Baumle and Compton 2014). Before same-sex parents replied to the census in accordance with the law, their consciousness became pivotal in understanding their family identification since they were constrained by the discourse available (Baumle and Compton 2014). Same-sex couples often rely on

24

experts, the law, heteronormative family definitions, and emotional lived experiences to answer surveys (Baumle and Compton 2014). The family has come to embody straight cultural forms that reward heteronormative behavior and punish alternative family structures through laws and regulations (Folgero 2008; Schneider 1997). Therefore, the legitimization of homosexuality and alternative families has become prominent in our society through laws and social norms (Schneider 1997).

Chosen Families

Families of choice are kinship networks that individuals choose based on subjective interactions like love, solidarity, and shared memories to create families.

Families of choice provide a counter narrative to dominant views of kinship as they do not rely on biology, genetics, or procreation to define the family. Prior to the use of the term families of choice, non-biologically related people were termed “fictive kin” in the family literature (Nelson 2012). The term “fictive kin” was found to be predominantly used when referring to African American people, minority groups, and other marginal groups, like those found in gay and lesbian relationships (Nelson 2012). Nelson (2012) conducted an analysis of the literature on “fictive kin” and argued that the discussion of fictive kinship was bound in a paradigm that has been racialized and marginalized.

Nelson found that there had been two main shifts in the language used when studying

“fictive kin.” Nelson found that the language of non-biologically related people shifted from “fictive kin” to “families of choice” after Weston published Families We Choose:

Lesbians, Gays, Kinship [1991] and then Brathwaite et al. (2010) used the term

“voluntary kin.” Weston’s [1991] (1997) classic study of gay men and lesbian women’s creation of “chosen” families established the foundation for understanding how kinship

25

relationships are made to counter the normative narratives of the family.

Weston [1991] (1997) studied gay men and lesbian women’s creation of “chosen” families in San Francisco during the 1980’s using interviews and participant observations. Weston found that families of choice had fluid boundaries, but they were not randomly selected. Gay men and lesbian women defined chosen family members as those who are “there for you” and those you love (113). Weston used love as a grounding criterion to defining families as it disassociates kinship away from erotic or non-erotic relations (e.g. partner and children) into one based on the subject concept of love.

Families of choice thus used love, shared histories, and solidarity as symbols to differentiate their family from their friends.

Weston [1991] (1997) argued that “chosen” families should not be viewed as a comparison of other kinship relations, but rather as a “historical transformation” (106).

Weston viewed “chosen” families as chronological successors of kinship relationships where gay men and lesbian women create families as they “come-out” and are either

“accepted” or “rejected” by their families of origin. Weston makes a note that biological and adoptive relatives are not inherently assumed as kin in gay “chosen” families since the rejection of the gay or lesbian individual can lead the relative to be excluded. Weston also highlighted that the use of the term “we” in “families we choose” demonstrates a level of individualistic agency not found in the term “biological” families. The term

“biology” eliminates the person’s agency as they are assumed to be part of a kinship structure based on predetermined terms. Weston argued that biology was used as a sanctioning tool in the creation of families as it used procreation to legitimize kinship relationships. Ultimately, Weston [1991] (1997) found that families of choice created a

26

counter narrative to normative views of family as they disassociated kinship relationships from biological, but rather emphasized instances of love, shared memories and life stories, and solidarity to create families.

Incorporation of the Literature

The literature on drag queens and alternative families and kinship is used throughout this study to ground the findings within the existing literature. It also highlights how drag queen houses and community building are at the intersection of these two areas of study. The literature on drag queens predominantly focuses on drag queens’ abilities to disrupt essentialist views of gender and sexuality (Berkowitz and Belgrave

2010; Egner and Maloney 2016; Horowitz 2013; Taylor and Rupp 2005). The literature also focuses on how drag queens negotiate their multiple identities to understand their commitment to drag and disruption of essentialist views of race, gender, and sexuality

(Hopkins 2004; Egner and Maloney 2016; Rupp et al. 2010; Taylor and Rupp 2005).

Understanding drag queens’ negotiation of their identities is important to this study’s focus on the identity processes that drag queens undertake toward their different identities in their interpersonal interactions within the LGBTQ+ community. Hence, the literature on drag queens provides this study with a foundation for understanding how drag queens negotiate their identities and disrupt essentialist views of gender and sexuality.

The literature on alternative families and kinship networks within the LGBTQ+ community provides the study with a foundation for understanding the dynamics of same-sex couples’ families (Allen and Jaramillo-Sierra 2015; Folgero 2008; Schneider

1997; Stacey 2005) and other LGBTQ+ members create families of choice based on love, solidary, and shared memories (Weston [1991] 1997). The literature on alternative

27

families and kinship networks within the LGBTQ+ community specifically helped inform the study’s focus on how drag queen houses are constructed and maintained within the community as a replication or disruption of normative family structures and roles. Additionally, the literature informs the study’s interception of how drag queens build family ties and situate their selves within the LGBTQ+ community. It is vital to this study to focus on drag queen houses as there is limit literature on their dynamics (Arnold and Bailey 2009; Bailey 2013; Nepean 2004; Rupp and Taylor 2003; Way 2014).

Therefore, the study’s focus on drag queen houses and community building fills a gap in the literature on drag queens and on alternative families and kinship networks.

28

THEORETICAL APPROACH

This research study uses a deconstructionist approach (employed by queer theorist), and a social constructivist approach (employed by feminist scholars) to understand and interpret how drag queens deconstruct normative gender and family roles, and construct new social identities through their creation of chosen families. The study uses doing gender perspective and queer theory to analyze the identity processes that drag queens undertake in their interpersonal interactions within the drag community, within the LGBTQ+ community, and within larger society. Additionally, a doing gender perspective and queer theory are used to analyze how drag queen families are constructed, as well as maintained, as a replication or disruption of normative family structures. Lastly, the theories were used to understand how drag queens build community and situate their self within the LGBTQ+ community. West and

Zimmerman’s (1987) concept of doing gender frames this study’s approach to gender identities and roles. Queer theory also informs this research as it disrupts normative and binary categories of gender (Gammon and Isgro 2006; Hall and Wolfreys 2016; Jagose

1996; Jagose 2009). Furthermore, queer theory directly challenges normative social identities found in society and it lends itself to the analysis of the disruptive schemes of drag queen family structures. Therefore, doing gender and queer theory are used simultaneously throughout the study in order to understand and ground disruptive and performative aspects of the intersecting identities that drag queens hold.

Doing Gender

West and Zimmerman (1987) view gender as an achieved status that is constructed using psychological, cultural, and social meanings attached to sex categories.

29

Sex categories are “socially agreed upon biological criteria for classifying persons as females or males” (West and Zimmerman 1987:127). Sex and gender differ, as gender roles are situated identities that have no specific site, while sex categories are viewed as master identities that transcend spaces (West and Zimmerman 1987). West and

Zimmerman used Goffman’s (1976) view of gender as being a dramatization of socially scripted cultural ideals of feminine and masculine “natures” that are being displayed to individuals who hold these same cultural ideals in their concept of doing gender. Hence, they view gender as a complex guided perceptual, intersectional, and micropolitical activity that portrays masculine or feminine “nature” in an individual’s display called

“doing gender” (West and Zimmerman 1987:126).

West and Zimmerman (1987) understand gender as an accomplishment of achieved properties and behaviors in relation to interactional and instructional situations, and in light of normative concepts of “attitudes and activities appropriate for one’s sex category” (126-7). The accomplishment of gender (doing gender) involves the use of well-defined behaviors that can be used in interactional situations to produce a representation of masculinity and femininity (West and Zimmerman 1987). Individuals doing gender are made accountable for their actions as these actions imply accountability of how others view the individual (West and Zimmerman 1987). Furthermore, West and

Zimmerman (1987) do not solely view doing gender as a normative conceptualization of femininity or masculinity, but as a production of gender. Although not heavily stressed,

West and Zimmerman (1987) also address sexuality as they see the appearance of heterosexuality as an overemphasis of behaviors of one’s sex. They assert that if one

30

wants to be recognized as having a sexuality (such as a homosexual identity) they must first establish a sex category (such as “man”).

Queer Theory

Queer theory generally problematizes fixed notions of categories and understandings in society, which is evident in its inability to be defined as a fixed theoretical frame (Hall and Wolfreys 2016; Jagose 1996; Jagose 2009). Queer theory has a dialectic definition in academia that does not allow for the creation of a strict definition of the theory (Gammon and Isgro 2006; Halperin 2003; Jagose 2009; Philbrook 2003;

Smith 2003). Queer theory was founded in the instability of sex, gender and sexuality categories and problematizes the normalization of heterosexuality in society through the use of the word “queer” (Jagose 1996). The term “queer” is in a constant process of formation, so the discipline of queer theory is in constant mobility as it is used transformatively throughout sociology (Jagose 1996). “Queering” implies the disruption of the notion of normality, rather than direct sexuality (Hall and Wolfreys 2016).

“Queering” is used in academia to question the systems of classifications to the extent that they cannot naturalize or concretized classifications (Hall and Wolfreys 2016). Queer theory also highlights the notion of normality that is applied to our understanding of the

“self” through dominant society that constrains the possible construction of identities

(Hall and Wolfreys 2016). Therefore, an important element of queer theory, like feminist theory, is the “refusal of normative identity categories” (Jagose 2009:160).

Queer theory is understood as an analytical model that disrupts the socially instituted stability and relationship between sex, gender, and sexual desire (Jagose 1996).

Queer theory takes on a deconstructionist paradigm as it exposes the incoherencies of

31

socially deemed “natural” categories in society (Gammon and Isgro 2006; Jagose 1996).

Queer theory seeks to negotiate and dismantle normative categories that limit identities as singular or dichotomous (Gammon and Isgro 2006; Hall and Wolfreys 2016). Queer theory views all categories as socially constructed since reality is socially constructed

(Smith 2003). Queer theory thus disrupts the singular notion of identity to the extent that it does not allow for the “placing” of individuals in a singular, fixed category (Hall and

Wolfreys 2016). Queer theory views all interactions as textually significant because they demonstrate power dynamics formed from categorical assumptions in society (Smith

2003). Hence, queer theory methodologically uses narratives and objective evidence that reflects lived experiences to critique heteronormativity and dominant dichotomous views of gender (Gammon and Isgro 2006). Queer theory takes on a deconstructionist approach to normative social categories and highlights the incoherencies among fixed identities that constrain individuals understanding of their “self” (Green 2007; Jagose 1996).

Although queer theory takes a deconstructionist approach to dominant power structures, queer theory has been critiqued for employing dominant discourses to legitimize itself. It has been critiqued for emphasizing theory over queering dominant discourses when incorporating itself into dominant academia (Halperin 2003). Scholars critique that “queering” has become a “harmless qualifier for theory’” and has become synonymous with ‘liberal’ (Halperin 2003: 342). Hence, “queer” has come to be viewed as generically a political opposition of a stance, rather than a tool to critique dominant political discourses (Halperin 2003). Queer theory also has been critiqued for ignoring the material world of economics for the interpersonal and micro world of interpretations and interactions (Smith 2003). Furthermore, Queer theory has been critiqued for

32

changing so drastically epistemologically and theoretically since its inception, that the history of humanity becomes ignored in the analysis of identities and categories (world of economics for the interpersonal and micro world of interpretations and interactions

(Smith 2003). Nonetheless, queer theory continues to be used across disciples as a tool to expose and dismantle dominant discourses that form categories of identities that constrain individuals into often dichotomous and fixed identities.

Theory Incorporation

The concept of doing gender and queer theory informs this research study as they both embody social constructivist perspectives and deconstructionist perspectives, respectively. Doing gender supports queer theory’s understanding that identities and gender roles are socially constructed categories from which individuals are held accountable for by the dominant society (Jagose 1996; West and Zimmerman 1987).

Additionally, doing gender was able to expose the replication of dominant gender roles in marginalized communities as drag queens problematize gender in their performances, but adopt roles that support dominant discourses. Queer theory broadly informs the deconstructive power of drag queens’ creation and maintenance of their families and identities as they queer the notion of the family. Additionally, doing gender and queer theory lend themselves to qualitative research as they methodologically use lived experiences and narratives to inform and expose the socially constructed categories of identities in society (Gammon and Isgro 2006; Jagose 1996). Therefore, this study used doing gender and queer theory to understand the drag queens’ experiences building community and the disruptive or reproductive aspects of drag houses and identities.

33

METHODOLOGY

Purpose of the Study

The study intends to shed light on different aspects of the drag queen community that have been overlooked or not directly studied before in academia. This study used in- depth qualitative interviews to allow for rich data collection of drag queens’ lived experiences. The study is theoretically informed by social constructivist aspects of doing gender to explore the ways drag queens understand their drag queen and house roles. The study also utilized the deconstructive nature of queer theory to understand how drag queens build community, families, and situate themselves in the LGBTQ+ community as a marginalized sub-group of a larger marginalized group.

Research Questions

• What are the identity negotiation processes that drag queens employ in the drag

community?

o What are the identity negotiation processes that drag queens employ in

the LGBTQ+ community and within the larger society?

• How are drag queen houses constructed and maintained?

o How do drag queen houses replicate or disrupt normative family

structures and roles?

• How do drag queens build community?

o How do drag queens situate their selves with the LGBTQ+ community?

Case Study

This study utilized a case study methodological approach. The approach was chosen for both methodological and pragmatic reasons. The case study approach allowed

34

for exploration and understanding of complex issues in a way that would not be permitted with a larger sample size. A case study approach was chosen for practical reasons given the difficultly I had I recruiting drag queens willing to discuss the topic of drag families.

Even though I had prior connections to drag queens prior to the start of this study, the research topic of drag families made it challenging to recruit participants from the small and tight-knit drag queen and drag house community in Los Angeles. The participants were rather chosen from convenience and thus, their lived experiences were analyzed in context as situational cases.

The participants embody a unit of activity that represent a particular time and place since they are not a representative sample (Gillham 2010). Although the participants were not a statistically representative sample, the participants did include key members of the L.A. drag community. One of the participants (Geovanni) embodied a key member of the drag house community and another participant (Lorenzo) embodied a key member of the drag queen community. Since the case study consisted of key participants, in-depth qualitative interviews were used to obtain the data. Qualitative in- person interviews are viewed as potentially providing rich data and are seen as essential in case studies with a small number of key participants (Gillham 2010). This case study also used the previous literature on drag queens and alternative families and kinship to help support the findings and to help ground the research.

Source of Data

The data for this study was collected through qualitative in-person interviews with self-identified drag queens that were 18 years of age or older. The in-person interviews were audio recorded and yielded the main source of data for this study, since interviews

35

have the potential to provide intimate and in-depth perspectives of the lives of drag queens and their social dynamics. Additionally, all participants were given consent forms and all other related material to this study was available to the participants upon request.

Qualitative Interviews

A total of five in-depth interviews were conducted with five drag queens. The interview schedule used during the interviews was approved through my university

Institutional Review Board (IRB) prior to the expected time of the interviews (see

Appendix A). The interviews took a semi-structured approach with my interview questions in order to allow the participants to guide the conversation and discuss topics outside of the interview script. Additionally, the interview script was tailored to meet time restrains of some participants. The individual interviews ranged from approximately

30 – 60 minutes and the interviews were audio recorded with consent from the participants. One interview was conducted in a coffee shop, one interview was conducted over the phone and three interviews were conducted at a bar. The participants chose the location of the interviews in order to accommodate their needs and comfort levels.

During the interview process, the participants were reminded that their participation in the study was voluntary and that they could choose to end the interview at any time. At the end of the interview, the participants were reminded of my contact information in case they had any further questions about the overall study and/or their participation in the study. The participants, except one, were in steady contact with me about the process of the study until its completion. After the interviews were completed, the audio recordings were transcribed. The transcriptions were a product of listening to the audio recordings twice to assure that the transcripts reflected the audio-recordings. The

36

transcriptions redacted all identifying information and the participants were all given pseudonyms to protect their confidentiality.

The interviews were transcribed and uploaded to ATLAS.ti10. Then all the transcriptions were read and sections were highlighted that described drag processes and terms. The highlighted sections were assigned a code (label) that identified an analytic pattern or theme. The codes arose from the interviews, so there were no codes created before the coding process began. After all the interviews were highlighted and coded, the codes were reviewed to guarantee that they were exclusive. The codes that were deemed too similar were merged into one code. Subsequently, the codes were organized into code groups (Appendix D) that were a product of the main research questions and code density. The interviews were then recoded using the master coding list and code groups.

The second recoding of the interviews was done to ensure that all the interviews were reviewed using the master code list since codes were created as I read each transcription.

Afterward, the interviews were recoded one last time to assure that no quotes were being ignored. Ultimately, the interviews were coded three times to assure that all the codes were appropriately used in throughout the interviews.

Recruitment Method

The recruitment method for this study was snowball sampling. Snowball sampling was used as a form of convenience sampling since the population being studied is considered hard-to-reach (Handcock and Gile 2011). It is important to note that snowball sampling highlights the influence of leaders and followers in communities as initial informant identify themselves as a leaders or follower according to their references

10 ATLAS.ti is a qualitative data analysis software program 37

(Handcock and Gile 2011). A personal drag queen contact was the first person approached and this individual referred me to other drag queens in the community.

Thereafter, a non-drag queen contact, who is heavily involved within the drag queen community, was the second person approached. One of the drag queens my non-drag queen contact referred to me, referred another drag queen to me. I contacted referred drag queens via Facebook, according to their preference. The initial contact entailed a brief explanation of the purpose of the study. If the potential participants expressed interest in the study, I asked them what time was best for them to meet and where they would like to meet. During the meeting, I gave the participants the Consent Form, Project Information form, and Interview Schedule to provide them with full transparency of the study and their participation. I also posted study participant requests on craigslist for multiple weeks, but no participants reached out on craigslist.

Ethical Considerations

An emphasis was placed on the ethical considerations of the study as it involved human subjects. To account for potential ethical problems that could potentially arise in an interview-based study, the tenets of the study were reviewed and approved by the university’s Institutional Review Board. The study also provided participants with consent forms that addressed the potential risks and discomforts associated with the study’s focus on families, like psychological harm and confidentiality. Since this research aimed to understand a marginalized group in society, there may have been questions that participants since they related to their lived experiences and stigmatized identities. The participants were reminded before the interview that they had the right to end the interview or any further exploration of any topic in order to limit the possibility

38

of psychological discomfort or distress. Furthermore, the participants were given a pseudonym to protect their identities and all identifying information was removed from the transcriptions. Additionally, I placed an emphasis on confidentiality when speaking to other participants as all the participants knew at least one other participant in the study.

Sample Demographics

All participants were asked basic demographic questions during or after the interview. However, they were not required to provide any demographic information if they did not feel comfortable disclosing that information. Three participants were given a

Demographic Data Form (Appendix C). The Demographic Date Form asked them to fill- in their age, racial or/and ethnic identification, gender identity, sexual orientation, relationship status, and occupational status. Aside from basic demographic questions, all participants were asked how long they had been doing drag and if they were part of a drag house (if so, they were asked what position in the house they held). It is important to note that the only questions they were directly asked to answer from the Demographic

Date Form were age, racial or/and ethnic identification, and gender identity. The other two participants that were not given the Demographic Date Form were still asked basic demographic questions within the interview. All basic demographic questions are displayed in Table 1 and all other demographic questions are displayed in Table 2 below.

The age of the participants ranged from 25 to 43. Only two participants were under the age of 30 and the remaining 3 were older than 31. It should be noted that the two personal contacts that helped with recruitment are above the age of 31, so their references were within their age range. Interestingly, age did not reflect time doing drag as 4 participants had been doing drag for 3 to 4 years, while only one participant had been

39

doing drag for 10 years. One participant stated they were doing drag for 4 years, but he took a year break from doing drag for personal reasons.

Three participants identified as Hispanic/Latina/o, two participants identified as

Black and one participant identified as White/Caucasian, respectfully. Once again, the racial or/and ethnic identification of participants can be a reflection of the personal contacts that I had who helped with recruitment.

The gender identification of participants varied as 3 identified as male, 1 identified as female, and 1 identified as queer. It is important to note that one participant

(Manny) stated he was male after the interview, but said he was gender fluid during the interview. The participant focused heavily on the constraints of labels in our society during his interview and also reflects the constraints that come with demographic questions. Hence, the participants were only asked to answer the questions they felt comfortable with and with the language they preferred. The participants’ gender identity also helps situate their responses and definition of drag terms within the study. One of the three participant (Sasha) who had the Demographic Data Form answered the sexual orientation question, stating they were heterosexual. Another participant (Manny) stated afterwards that he was gay. Only one participant (Sasha) answered the relationship status question, stating she were married. After the interview process, all participants (expect

Sasha) were asked what their gender pronouns were to accurately speak about them in this study.

All five participants shared that they had jobs outside of performing in drag. The participant’s occupations varied; retail worker and hair stylist, host and DJ, performer and graphics designer, professor, and hair stylist and server. All participants included drag

40

performance as one of their jobs. One participant (Skyler) stated that performing in drag was their11 “quarter time job” as they were a full-time professor and clarified that they did not get paid while in drag since they are associated with a non-profit that collects their earnings from drag performances.

Since the study was focused on extending the literature and understanding drag houses, all five participants were asked if they were a part of a drag house. Two participants stated they were in a drag house and that they were the drag mothers of their respected drag house. The remaining 3 participants stated they were in some sort of drag family outside of a drag house. One participant (Sasha) said she was an “auntie” in her drag family and one participant (Skyler) had the formal role of a “sister” in their drag family.

Table 1: Basic Demographics of Participants

Pseudony Age Racial/ Gender Gender Sexual Relations m Ethnic Identity Pronouns Orientatio hip Status Identity n Geovanni - Hispanic/ Male He/His/Him Latino Lorenzo 29 Hispanic/ Male He/His/Him Latino Sasha 41 Black Female She/he/her Heterosex Married ual Skyler 43 White/ Queer She/he/her Caucasian or They/Them Manny 25 Hispanic/ Fluid He/His/Him Gay Latino (male) Table 2: Other Demographics of Participants

Pseudonym Occupational Occupational Years doing Role in Status drag Drag House

11 They/their are gender natural pronoun used to identify individuals that do not associate with a female (she/her) or male identity (he/his). 41

Geovanni Employed Retail/ Hair 10 years Mother Stylist Lorenzo Employed Host/DJ 4 years N/A Sasha Performer/ Performer/ 4 years Auntie Graphic Designer Graphic Designer Skyler Employed Professor 3 years Sister Manny Employed Server/ Hair 4 years Mother Stylist (one year break) Portrait of the Participants

Geovanni was the first participant interviewed. Geovanni was the influencer leader I identified for recruitment purposes as his drag house helped inspire my research and has made him notable in the community. Geovanni is also a family friend; he is one of my brother’s oldest friends. Geovanni is a Hispanic/Latino male who works in retail and is a freelance hair stylist. Geovanni has been doing drag for about 10 years as of

2017. Geovanni is the drag mother of his drag house. He is a drag mother to three drag daughters and two drag sons.

Lorenzo was the second participant interviewed. Lorenzo was referred to me by another influencer leader who does not do drag. Lorenzo is a self-identified

Hispanic/Latino male. He is 29 years old and has been doing drag for 4 years as of 2017.

Lorenzo is employed as a Host and DJ in the locations he performs drag. Lorenzo helped me recruit Sasha after his interview and is my direct line to her.

Sasha was the third participant interviewed right after Lorenzo. Sasha is a self- identified Black female. Sasha is heterosexual and married. She has one daughter with her husband. Sasha is 41 years old and has done drag for 4 years. Sasha is a performer

42

and graphic designer. Sasha stated that all her jobs revolve around what she does in order to do drag. Sasha identified as a Faux queen12 during her interview.

Skyler was the fourth participant interviewed. I recruited Skyler through

Facebook from the friends list of Geovanni. Skyler is a self-identified White/Caucasian queer individual. Skyler is 43 years old and has been doing drag for 3 years. Interestingly,

Skyler is a full-time professor at a university and had a stimulating conversation about this study before their interview with me. Skyler also stated that they often write academically about their experiences in drag. Skyler is a member of a drag non-profit that focuses on philanthropy and education in the LGBTQ+ community.

Manny was the fifth and final participant interviewed. I recruited Manny through

Facebook. I reached out to Manny through their friendship with Lorenzo. Manny is a

Hispanic/Latino male. During the interview, Manny stated he was “fluid in every way” but identify as a male when asked about his gender afterward. Manny also identified as gay. Manny is employed as a server and hair stylist. Manny is 25 years old and has been doing drag for 4 years. Manny stated that he took off a year for personal reasons. Manny is also a drag mother.

12 A Faux queen (another name for Bio queen) is a biological woman who identifies as a woman and performs as a drag queen. 43

FINDINGS

The findings of this research study were framed within the lived experiences of the participants as they negotiate their drag identity, build drag houses and families in relation to their families of origin, and their experiences within the LGBTQ+ community.

The three main themes found in the data were Identity Negotiation, Drag House and

Families, and LGTBQ+ Community. The themes encompassed all three levels of analysis: micro-, meso- and macro-. The Identity Negotiation theme revolved around the participants’ individual use of drag as a tool for resistance as well as their salience13 and time commitment to their identities. In the Drag House and Families theme, I overviewed the participants’ knowledge of the construction and maintenance of drag houses and families. In the Drag House and Families theme I also overviewed how drag houses/families relate and differentiate from families of origins. The LGTBQ+

Community theme focused on the participant’s interactions and accountability to the

LGBTQ+ community. To understand the three main themes found in this research study, this section first overviewed the participants’ own definitions and understandings of drag.

Understanding the participants’ definitions of drag terms is vital to the study as it frames how they situate themselves within the community.

Participants’ Definitions of Drag

All five participants were asked to defined drag queens, drag related terms, and their personal aesthetic. Some of the definitions and explanations of drag terms were similar, but there was some variation in their responses. Hence, it is important to

13 Identity salience is how individuals prioritize one role above all other roles associated with their other identities (Stryker 1980). 44

overview the participants’ responses as it situates their experiences within their own defined worlds separate from dominant views of the drag community.

Mainstream Views of Drag

All participants were first asked to define how dominant (mainstream) culture would define drag and a majority of them referenced classic views of drag as a deviant act. The view of drag queens as cross dressers was reflected in Geovanni’s responses that

“people think all drag queens are cross dressers, that want to be females.” He goes on to clarify that he does not want to become a woman; he just embodies a female character to entertain. Although most participants stated that others held these views of drag queens, they also explained that the view of the drag queen community was changing as it becomes more popular in mainstream culture. For instance, Lorenzo stated:

I think when I first started [drag] people reacted that way but now because, you know, Drag Race has become such a big thing, there is so many drag queens. Now it’s more like “oh you do drag, that’s fun! Where do you perform?” You know, so there is a bigger interest now. I feel it’s more mainstream, definitely.

Lorenzo, like other participants, attributed the general public’s changed view of drag to the show RuPaul’s Drag Race and the emergence of drag queens in mainstream media.

Manny even stated “right now we are in such a drag renaissance” when talking about the drag community. The participants’ responses to the question about mainstream views of drag demonstrate a changing view of the community in mainstream culture as drag is becoming more popular.

Defining Drag

All the participants’ definitions of a drag queen generally align with the definition most academics use in the literature: biological men who dress and perform as woman and who identify as a member of the LGBTQ+ community (Hopkins 2004; Horowitz 45

2013; Egner and Maloney 2016; Taylor and Rupp 2004). For instance, Geovanni defined a drag queen as:

A person that makes up a character to perform and entertain others. So I make up a character and I go with it. You do your hair. You do your make-up as an entertainer to like embody whatever you feel. Like for me, I do it to embody what I feel inside as an artistic person and it helps me translate that into the world and also helps entertain and show people a good time…

Geovanni’s definition reflects the literature which highlights the freedom of expression that drag performances can provide a drag queen that drag queens otherwise would not have access to outside of drag (Berkowitz and Belgrave 2010; Hopkins 2004; Taylor and

Rupp 2005). Other participants echoed the freedom of expression that drag performances allow them. For instance, Skyler stated that drag “allows me a sense of creativity, a sense of empowerment, a sense of expression that maybe I don’t have on the everyday level.”

Sasha shared “being a drag queen for me means great artistic freedom, and license to really explore all areas of whatever you can contribute as an entertainer.” Consequently, the participants defined drag within the realm of performances and its abilities to provide them with a sense of freedom of expression they otherwise do not have outside of drag.

Along the lines of drag as a form of expression, two participants compared superheroes to drag personas stating drag personas are similar to superhero “alter egos”

(Geovanni). The comparison demonstrates the freedom of expression and empowerment drag personas provide drag queens as they construct characters that they maneuver during their performances and remove once they are outside of the performance as found in

Hopkins (2004) study. Manny expanded his comparison of superheroes and drag when he said:

[Drag] helps me break out of that and it helps me go into this space where I can kind of turn into a superhero, or something for a couple of hours and wash it off 46

and like I took that out, I finally expressed myself.

Manny demonstrates how drag provided him with a sense of empowerment through a character or “alter ego” of a superhero that he felt safe to express within his drag performance.

Manny furthered the discussion of the freedom of expression that drag provides to people in the community when he stated:

Being a drag queen means embodying feminisms of your own essence…it’s become an art form that trans or a female can use, instead of just a male embodying a female essence…we’re embedding feminism, feminine energy to its greatest potential, that we can in our own bodies.

Manny’s definition of a drag queen aligns with the understanding that drag queens embody femininity in their performances (Hopkins 2004; Horowitz 2013; Egner and

Maloney 2016; Taylor and Rupp 2004). Manny’s definition also demonstrates drag queens can become empowered within the community through their transformative ability to enter another gendered character as has been found in the work of other scholars (Berkowitz and Belgrave 2010; Hopkins 2004). Furthermore, their definition highlights how drag queens can also include females and trans individuals.

All of the participants included Faux queens or Bio queens in their definition of drag. Most participants included biological women in their definition of drag as they saw them embodying “hyper feminism” (Lorenzo). Geovanni specifically stated:

They’re [Faux queens] actual females that dress up like drag queen and it’s like they make their make up more exaggerated… they are doing exactly what we are doing, they are just making, they’re pushing the boundaries of being female into more, into more.

Geovanni’s definition demonstrates how Faux queens are viewed as performing an exaggerated just like their male counterparts. The one participant (Sasha)

47

who self-identified as a Bio/Faux queen also reiterated the notion that she does hyper femininity. Sasha stated:

[Faux Queen is] a biological woman who exaggerates female norms and stereotypes, you know. I think women in drag really love to play with the costume that women are given rather than adopt them as a day to day way of life. We really try to make fun of it just the same way the guys do.

Sasha’ definition of a Faux queen reflects the other participants’ views of Faux queens as members of the drag community and demonstrates how Faux queens are actively using female stereotypes to mock normative views of gender and sexuality in their performances. Therefore, the participants’ inclusion of Faux queens into the definition of drag demonstrates how the community adapts to the gradual change that occurs in any community.

It should be noted that one participants claimed different drag identities outside of the term “drag queen”. Skyler alternated throughout the interview between multiple drag labels when referring to their identity, stating:

I guess non-profit performance artist, if that is what we are going to call me, because I wouldn’t claim that I am doing, I am not being paid right, on stage to do drag. I am trying to collect money for a non-profit, so I guess I am being paid but all that money goes to non-profit causes, so it’s not like my professional identity

Skyler added earlier in the interview:

Kind of a drag, twenty first century drag clown [redacted term] let’s say is the best way to describe it and so the whole point of that would be, associated with the non-profit, to bring joy to others. To easier stigma and so we quit intentionally use our bodies in a vary recognizable way to draw attention to ourselves…then we think that that serves sort of as a guide line for others to know that they too should be able to go and be their true sort of identity, or true self

Skyler’s multiple definitions and terms used to define their drag identity demonstrates the diversity of drag. In the statements above, Skyler addresses the assumption of drag queens having to perform for money in their first quote and then, situates themselves 48

within the community. Skyler is a member of a LGBTQ+ non-profit group that uses drag in their workshops, performances, and demonstrations. Hence, Skyler’s drag identity moves away from the traditional definition of drag and moves into a realm of community services and non-profit work.

Understanding the participants’ definition of drag and drag related terms is important as it reinforces and expands the definition of drag. The participants’ definitions refer to the changes occurring within the drag community that include those who were previously not seen as drag queens and those who use drag for non-profit work.

Therefore, situating the participants’ understandings and definition of drag provides the study with a foundation for how the participants will approach their personal and group identity processes within the intersecting drag and LGBTQ+ communities.

Identity Negotiation

The Identity Negotiation theme is rooted in the interview questions that explored the participants’ views of their intersecting identities. The data for the theme come from the codes and frequencies found in the Identity code group (Appendix E) and the Views of

Drag code group (Appendix G). The two code groups were used as they house codes the participants used to refer to their identity as a drag queen. It should be noted that the participants’ use of their identity as a tool of resistance is associated with a macro-level community theme that will be discussed later.

Drag as a Tool of Resistance

Drag is overwhelmingly viewed as a transformative act as it challenges essentialist and normative views of gender and sexuality. Drag performances represent the fragility of essentialist views of gender as men embody typically viewed female traits

49

to entertain. Several of the participants talked about how they viewed drag as a challenge to normative understandings of gender in their descriptions of drag queens. When defining a drag queen, Lorenzo said “well, being a drag queen to me is to, I guess, break the gender norms and express yourself in a way that you [couldn’t]”. Lorenzo’s reference to drag’s ability to break gender norms demonstrates his conscious decision to counter norms in society and the inherent view of drag as a transformative tool within the community. Lorenzo’s definition of drag as a form of breaking gender norms was a common theme among the participants. Sasha even said that drag “is deeper than people give it credit for. It is not just people putting on dresses. It’s really people defining convention in a very necessary way.” Sasha furthered the notion of drag as a tool for challenging gender norms and explains its ability to actively bring forth conversations in the community.

The participants framed drag as an arena in which conventions were being dismantled and its participants actively engaged in these disruptions. Manny furthers the discussion of drag as a disruptive act when he said “I feel a lot of us drag queens and artistic people have been going in this time to break out of the [gender] system that they have been trying to put us in”. Manny makes references to the entire gender system and other oppressive systems in his explanation of what drag can do. The participants’ inclusion of breaking gender systems in their definition of drag highlights the community’s view of drag as inherently gender transformative. Several participants stressed that drag was bringing to the forefront a conversation about gender norms and stereotypes. The participants also explained in their definitions how drag queens consciously and actively choose to disrupt gender norms in their performances.

50

The disruptive ability of drag was often framed among participants as a conscious and active choice. The participants assumed drag queens knew that their performances would challenge gender norms and oppressive systems. When defining their association with a drag queen non-profit, Skyler proclaimed “It is inherently tied to using drag as a sort of mechanism or vehicle to kind of challenge cultural stereotypes.” Skyler explained that their organization directly used drag as a mechanism for challenging stereotypes.

Skyler thereafter went on to state that their identity in drag is focused on queering drag, rather than just passively using it. Skyler stated that they “queer drag” when they stated,

“deconstructing gender and making fun of cultural assumptions about bodies…so in a sense I try to queer the idea of drag. That it doesn’t have to be a gender idea.” Skyler thus used drag to challenge cultural stereotypes and actively queer drag understandings in their use of it. Additionally, Skyler used their drag queen identity as a tool for disrupting societal norms associated with work place roles. Skyler, a professor, expressed their initial reservations of telling their students about their identity as a drag queen, but decided that it would ultimately positively affect their students. Skyler explained:

…and then I thought to myself “Wait I am doing this exactly for that moment when they find them [pictures of them naked for a promotion] ... Like if they were to find them, what would that conversation look like?” You know and maybe they would just realize, “oh my professor is also a person, she does more things than just you know, work” and so maybe what does this picture mean and maybe like I thought “wow this is the exact kind of conversation that I want started about this imagine, weather its people that know me or people that don’t know me, and so it was around that time that I decided, you know, what I am just announcing that I am a [redacted drag non-profit member] in our school newspaper. So that way we are just goings to get over this you know and you know, embrace it, name it, own it.

Skyler’s decision to publically tell the university about their drag queen identity demonstrates their use of drag as a tool of resistance since they welcome their students

51

questioning the preserved roles of professors’ personal lives.

The participants’ stressed that gender was a disruptive tool they could use in their drag performance. Sasha reflected the participants’ discussion of drag using gender as a performative tool when she said:

Like drag is acting, but it is gender-based acting. Yeah, it is definitely acting that surrounds gender expectations and stereotypes and norms and things people are used to. It kind of, you know, pokes holes in people’s theories. Like yeah like I guess your basic drag queen is a person who chooses to turn peoples’ expectations of what they want to see out of people, upside down.

Sasha’s statement overviews their views of gender as an active challenge of gender norms by specifically highlighting the performance. Drag performances as seen as gender enactments of stereotypes and norms. The gender acting uses normative views of societal ideals to frame their performance and then disrupts them to challenge their views. Their expectations are disruptive as a tool of performance. Intriguingly, Sasha went on to state when talking about her personality:

I am a . I am a masculine girl and it’s not because, it’s not on purpose or anything, you know…I already defy convention … I don’t really cling to societal norms when it comes to gender, and it’s a natural evolution for a person like me to do something where the purpose of the art is to question gender and to bend it.

Sasha’s view of herself framed her use of drag as a tool of resistance within her personal identity of an active disruptive of societal norms. Sasha disrupted gender norms outside of her drag performances, which thus demonstrates the underlying desire of those who enter drag to disruptive gender norms. Therefore, several of the participants expressed that they actively used drag performances to disrupt and challenge societal norms through the use of “gender acting.”

52

Telling Others

Interestingly, all the participants expressed being open with discussing their drag queen identity with others, but under certain circumstances. When asked when he tells others about his drag identity, Lorenzo said:

Usually, how do I put it. If I’m just meeting random strangers, like I won’t really say anything. If I know I’m not going to talk to them again. If it’s someone let say that like, I, is interested in me or I’m interested them. It something that will come up pretty quickly because I don’t, I don’t like to hide anything about myself from people. So yeah, it all depend on the circumstances.

Lorenzo highlights the importance that many participants saw in telling those who are significant to them about his drag queen identity and not telling those who they are not close to. Skyler furthers the finding when they stated:

But that sometimes is difficult for people to understand. But I think that I intentionally and purposefully choose, you know, people that are, that I surround myself with that are sort of creativity types anyway.

Skyler refers to the fact that they only tell those close to them, and that those close to them are predominately people who are open to drag and other queer identities. One participant did express that they were less likely to tell strangers about their identity due to underlying discriminations in the community. Sasha said “it’s funny, people have asked me what I do, and I don’t always say that I am a drag queen because I don’t want to get into the explanation.” Sasha’s hesitation to tell others about their drag queen identity is fundamentally tied with the drag community’s bias of women doing drag, which will be discussed in a future section.

Some participants did find that their drag identity came up organically in conversation. For example, Geovanni found his drag mother status was often what people knew about him first when meeting him. Manny found that his drag identity came up

53

organically in conversations, stating:

I definitely don’t tell them first thing off. … But it comes out in conversation and it just comes out and it does a lot. There are, a lot of people have been accepting and it’s has been pretty cool response to it.

Overall, the participants found themselves more likely to tell others about their drag queen identity when they knew the person would be important to them and choose not to tell everyone they met.

Drag Identity Salience and Commitment

The salience and commitment to a drag queen identity was most visible in participants’ discussions of the process they adopt to keep in touch with people and their experiences when their different identities interact. Identity salience speaks to how individual prioritize a role associated with an identity above all other roles associated with other identities (Stryker 1980). Lorenzo exemplifies the salience to his drag identity when he explains:

I will say drag has taken over my life because it’s something, you know, that is, that is so, what’s the word, it takes so much time to get ready and then putting shows together and everything, it becomes your job. But at that point, because it all happens at night time, which is when most of the people around you offer of work, you know, you don’t really get to see them if they don’t come see you. So it affects you in that way where you don’t really have that old personal life you use to have, but other than that its, I don’t know it’s, fine. yeah

Lorenzo’s statement demonstrates how he prioritizes his drag queen identity over his other identities (like that of a friend) because his drag queen identity is more associated with his self. The statement also demonstrates the amount of time commitment drag queens must put into their drag identity. Additionally, Lorenzo’s quote demonstrates the difficultly of having a night time commitment that required of drag queens to become night owls. Their daytime is thus cut short in favor of fulfilling drag queen commitments.

54

Lorenzo went on to explain that his commitment to drag is comparable to a new career and that others need to understand his responsibilities. Lorenzo explains:

With any career you have to give up certain things, you know, … This is your job and I think because people don’t get that, it makes it hard for them to understand that you cannot make that time for them.

His quote outlines his views of drag as an important identity to him and that others need to see drag as an important commitment. Lorenzo also demonstrates how his drag queen identity is salient in his life as it is prioritized over his friend identity.

Drag House and Families

The drag house and families theme arose from the interview questions that directly addressed drag house dynamics. This theme had the most codes and code frequency among the code groups (Appendix F) as this study directly wanted to explore drag house dynamics and their association with families of origin. The drag house and families theme also encompass the family of origin code group as drag houses and families were found using normative family terminology and themes. The drag house and families and family of origin code groups were also often found intertwined in the same quote throughout the interviews. The participants demonstrated, in their overall knowledge and experiences with drag houses and families, how these structures are transformative and challenge views of the family.

Defining Drag House

Drag houses are familial structures that are based on kinship relationships and support (Arnold and Bailey 2009; Bailey 2013; Rupp and Taylor 2003). Drag houses consist of mothers (a more experienced drag queen) and a drag daughter (a newer drag queen) that adopt heteronormative family practices. House is a figurative, but some drag

55

queen house members do live together (Arnold and Bailey 2009; Bailey 2013). It should be noted that houses are predominantly made up of racial/ethnic minorities with similar social class status (Bailey 2013). The drag houses focused on in this study are similar to houses found in Ballroom cultures. However, they are named based on the drag mothers last name rather than “haute couture” designers and operate outside of Balls and the

Ballroom community (Arnold and Bailey 2009; Bailey 2013). Drag houses in this study can be understood as family units since a significant amount of participants directly stated that drag houses are also drag families. For instance, Geovanni used the term “drag family” when referencing his drag house throughout the interview and he stated that “It’s

[his drag house] like we aren’t blood related but we are related. It’s like very like that.

The emotional bond, the love we have for each other is true.” Drag houses adopt heteronormative family terms to structure their drag. Although the drag house community is relatively a small unit of the larger drag community, all participants knew at least one drag house. It should be noted that all participants knew at least one member from

Geovanni’s house.

The participants described drag houses as being “close knit” and supportive.

Geovanni said that drag houses were “basically a group of artists and individuals that do drag or are in the drag community.” The participants explained that drag houses are made up of a drag mother and drag daughter(s). Geovanni was the only participant that included drag sons in his explanation of who is in a drag family. Geovanni defined drag sons as:

Someone, gay boy, that is very into the drag scene that really isn’t a drag queen, that still kind of likes, loves to dance, loves to dress up alternatively or maybe is a club kid kind of that just loves being around drag and loves helping drag and enjoys it and sometimes don’t feel they belong. They belong with us and we just 56

help each other out.

Geovanni was also the only participant to include his ex-husband in his drag house and called him a drag dad. Geovanni explained that a drag dad was usually the partner of the drag mother and took on a supportive role in the family.

In their definitions of drag houses, participants emphasized the supportive nature of the relationships. The participants’ definition of drag houses as supportive also encompasses the benefits they saw in those relationships. Sasha overviews the perspective of drag houses as supportive when she said:

Drag houses really support each other and lift each other’s aesthetics feel, you know. Like the bond becomes closer and people become stronger performances just by having that support and that little bit of help and having that mirror.

Support framed all of the participants’ definition of drag houses as they viewed support to be the most important aspect of what houses are. The support found in drag houses is further visible in Geovanni’s explanation that at one point all of his drag daughters physically lived with him. Geovanni stated, “so my house was my house.” Geovanni did not mention if he economically supported his daughter, but the use of his apartment as a place that other drag queens could come to live in demonstrates how drag houses support one another. Sasha interestingly used Geovanni’s old living situation to explain how drag house members have a higher level of emotional commitment to each other when she stated “well you definitely get like people who care for your well-being on a deeper level.

Like you know, the [redacted drag house name] they were all living together in the same apartment for a while, you know.” Sasha’s use of Geovanni’s living arrangement demonstrates the community views of the level of commitment and support drag house members have forwards one another.

57

In their definition of drag houses, the participants also speak to the exclusivity of houses as they are not formed with just “anyone.” For instance, Lorenzo highlights how drag houses are exclusive in his definition. He states, “so a drag house is basically a group of people that are all there to help each other out exclusively, you know. They want to make sure that they are the ones that succeed over anyone else.” Lorenzo goes on to say:

I would say it’s different because when it comes to, you know, to making sisters, like you that, you are open to that, you know. You are open to meeting someone and letting them come into your life, showing them things that you know. I think when you are in a drag house, you have to like be more careful as to who you talk to, or who you let know your secrets because they are your drag houses, you know?

Lorenzo’s emphasis on the exclusivity of drag houses highlights the importance of a drag house and how its members negotiate their commitment to such a group. The exclusivity of drag houses is subtly addressed through the participants’ definitions, as they all explain how drag mothers choose their drag daughters and are introduced to each other.

Benefits of Drag House

The benefits of a drag house revolved around its ability to support and create community for its members. The benefits of a drag house are intertwined with the definitions participants gave for a drag house. When asked what are the benefits of a drag house, Skyler responded:

Once again it would be the community. You have community, you have people that care about you. You have kind of an insider track. You know kind of like what to expect, who to talk to, who to reach out for. You know, if you need something, yeah you got someone helping you along the way.

Skyler highlights the mentorship found in drag houses as a benefit and the importance of community building. Community building is a common theme among the discussion of

58

drag houses and will be addressed in a forthcoming section. The participants also mentioned the access that drag house members have to other member’s individual skills as a beneficial aspect of a drag house. Geovanni said the following when referring to the benefits of drag houses:

…definitely the support and help cause sometimes one person knows how to do something. One person doesn’t know and that person that does know, like you know what I mean. Someone knows how to do wigs; someone knows how to do dresses. I’ll help you, we help each other out and do this.

Additionally, Geovanni said that drag houses help expand drag queens’ circle since

“some people know my drag daughters before they became my daughters… So it kind of just makes you more and more spread out.” Drag daughters and drag sons allow the drag mother reach a larger audience, so it expands her abilities within the drag community.

The status of a drag house and the clout that comes with some drag house names was also understood to be a benefit of drag house membership. Drag queens could benefit from the drag house name and were more likely to be recognized if their drag house had clout in the community. Drag house clout is a product of the drag mothers’ notoriety and last name recognition. One participant pointed out that they did not see the benefits of drag houses with lower status. When asked what the benefits were of a drag houses,

Lorenzo stated:

Good question. You know what, honestly, if they’re not a big name, I don’t think there’s really a benefit because I feel that if they’re a big name in the community as a daughter to that person you have more of a chance getting booked somewhere, you know but if it’s not a big name, nobody is really going to care

He then later shared:

Like if you are a [redacted drag family name], people want to know why or who you are. You know, if you are someone no one has ever heard of and your mother is someone nobody has never heard of, still doesn’t change anything

59

Lorenzo’s statement stresses the importance of the status of a drag house as he did not see value in having a drag house with a low house status. Lorenzo mainly saw the drag daughter benefiting from their drag mother’s name. Several study participants noted that

Geovanni’s house has a high level of recognition. Ultimately, the participants sighted support and community building as main beneficial aspects of the drag house and alluded to the status drag queens gain from their drag house name recognition.

Introduction to Drag House Members

The introduction of drag house members provides insight into their creation of families and builds a foundation for why drag houses are created. All the participants helped to define drag houses, but only self-identified members of drag houses were asked how they were introduced to their drag house members. How drag queens become part of a drag house is important as it speaks to the voluntary commitment to the house and to the bond among drag queens. It also demonstrates how terms often associated with biological children are challenged in the community as drag queens enter their daughter and mother relationships voluntarily. Geovanni met his daughters during events and competitions, while Manny met his drag daughters in the competition he MCs. Geovanni said he was drawn to his drag daughters because:

…it was more like when I see someone perform. I see a spark in them. I’m like “oh my god you are amazing like I can help you out so much. Do you want to be my drag daughter?” Or they will ask me or they will be embarrassed to ask me, so I will approach them and it just happens. Because I see their kind of drag and I see them. I see a part of myself in them, and sometimes they can perform better than me I’m like “you are really great, but you can do this as an entertainer or do this to make yourself more sociable or you can do this to dress better or you can do this to meet people” just like that.

Geovanni’s reasoning for choosing his drag daughters highlights his desire to help others, especially others that he sees himself in. His reasoning also demonstrates the negotiation 60

process that drag queens undergo when assessing if they should enter into a drag house.

Drag queens must negotiate if their relationships with drag house members personally fulfilling their needs and benefits both parties. Geovanni thus structures his houses around wanting to help his daughters better themselves as they remind him of himself.

Geovanni’s quote also addresses how drag houses transform the process of becoming a family, as the daughter is equally an active agent in choosing to enter a drag family which is not the case with daughters of biological families. For instance, Skyler said:

I mean, if you are going to choose someone as your drag mother, that is also you know, giving, I mean it’s not just like you are here for some advice. You are not just taking a make-up lesson from someone, right? Like you are also giving them a sense of access to you as a person. Like a safe space, so you’re, you’re available to them as, yeah, was a safe space.

Skyler’s statement highlights the agency that drag daughters have in choosing their drag mothers and the negotiation process that drag queens must undergo when entering drag houses.

Manny, a drag mother, structured his drag house on a combination of how he can help them and how they can all help each other. Manny said that drag houses:

…should be a team of people that help each other with what they are good at and that is what I have built my house around. In that one is a make-up artist, ones a stage designer, ones just wanting to help and being there… That’s what I build it on and to me, if someone comes up to me and says “hey I want to be, like I see something in you that I want to help me with or like I look up to you.” That is the thing that blows my mind. How can someone look up to me? And these are all people who look up to me, “so I am just I can teach you guys all I know but I am new.”

Manny views his house as an interactive network of individuals who help one another to build their skills. Geovanni also stated that he learned from his drag daughters. He shared, “…and I don’t always teach them, they teach me too, so it’s just one big whole 61

thing that one big group of individual that help each other out.” Therefore, the participants who are drag mothers stressed their want to help others when choosing their drag daughters and reinforced the finding that drag houses are built around a supporting group of individuals that can all help better the house.

Responsibilities of Drag Mothers

All the participants stated that drag houses are predominately based on a single drag mother and her drag daughter(s). The drag house takes on a matriarchal frame as the drag mother heads the family. The participants all explained that the responsibilities of drag mothers and daughters are based on mentorship, representation, and knowledge exchange. When asked what are the responsibilities of a drag mother, Lorenzo stated the

“drag mother is usually the one who has taught these girls basically everything they know.” Skyler said, “traditionally, I would say it’s about teaching make-up and teaching like showing the ropes maybe.” Sasha goes on the explain that a drag mother’s responsibilities are “definitely to help your drag children to constantly elevate because there is always room for improvement in any art, in any craft, with anything, with law, with medicine, with painting.” All the participants stressed that the main responsibilities of a drag mother are to teach and mentor their drag daughter. Skyler referenced the mentorship aspect of drag mother responsibilities when she says “it would be you know having, maybe if they are new to drag, showing them how to do certain things. Just like if you were showing them how to do a new job.”

The drag mother is also routinely understood to have been doing drag longer than their drag daughters and has more experience within the community. The drag mother does not necessarily have to be older than their drag daughters; they predominately just

62

need to have more experience in drag than them. Geovanni, a drag mother himself, explains the reasons why being an experienced drag queen is a requirement a drag mother must have, “like me being the house mother, I have more, I’ve been doing drag longer, so

I know networking, I know like all the main people who book the events.” His knowledge of the drag queen community helped him extend that knowledge to his drag daughters, a knowledge he otherwise would not have.

Geovanni situated much of his interview in the context of his drag mother identity. When asked about the responsibilities of a drag mother, Geovanni said:

The responsibilities of a drag mother are to show the drag sons and drag daughters to be more, because some people have attitudes. The younger people think they have everything, but to show them that you cannot be that way. You have to be proper. Know the things of drag, know when you are getting into. Helping them out with their looks, being supportive, constructive criticism. Showing them how they can grow in their drag career, just point them in the right way. Just giving them a wing to go under and take care of [them].

Geovanni’s description of drag mothers’ responsibilities encompasses all the disruptions given by the other participants and also highlights the role traits he embodies in his drag mother identity. Drag mothers must mentor their daughters and teach them how to

“properly” act. The latter aspect of what drag mothers teach their drag children mirrors

Skyler’s metaphor that drag mothers are like mentors teaching new employees about the job. When asked how important his drag mother identity was to him, Geovanni said:

Well, it [drag mother identity] is important to me because I want to impose my views of the LGBT community into them and also being alternative and queer and not being so like cookie cutter gay and a lot of them are those people that aren’t, they don’t feel they belong, to show them that it is like okay, like you don’t have to be accepted by everyone else.

Geovanni’s commitment to his drag mother identity relies heavily on his abilities to pass on his knowledge and views to his daughters, similar to traditional parental values of

63

teaching their children their views. Thereafter, Geovanni shared, “I guess it has been since I have been doing this so long, I just want to make sure they take in every little piece of me that I can help with along the way.” Geovanni’s explanation of his need to help his drag daughters to “take in every little piece of me” demonstrates to the responsibilities of a drag daughter to represent their drag mother.

Furthermore, the participants brought up a comparison of drag mother roles and roles associated with biological mothers. The participants used terms like “motherly” and

Geovanni explained how their drag children often refer to him as a mother outside of drag stating, “yeah, like I have a drag son who calls me mama all the time.” Geovanni brought up the comparison of both roles when he said “Me and my mom are very similar.

The way my mom is with me and our family is the way I am with my drag kids.”

Geovanni’s comparison of his drag mother identity and his drag mother role demonstrates the familial aspects of drag houses, specifically the role of a drag mother. Drag mothers must adopt normative roles associated with mothers in normative family structures.

Additionally, Sasha makes the comparison of a drag mother and a biological mother in their statement:

I feel like a drag mother, like any other parent looks out for their child’s best interest in their development… I feel like very much a drag mother is like a real mother in that, you know she is invested in her kids. Like their success is her success, you know.

Thus, the participants often compared drag mothers directly with biological mothers in their description of drag mother’s responsibilities. Even though drag queens fill a challenge to traditional notions of gender and sexuality, but drag house roles are similar to conventional biological families in their mother/daughter roles.

64

Representation of the Mother and the House

The responsibilities of the drag daughter fall upon two different areas of accountability towards the drag house –upholding the drag house name and representing the drag mother. The participants expressed that the drag daughter is mainly tasked with representing the drag house in their interactions within and outside of the drag community. When asked about the responsibilities of drag daughters, Skyler responded that “a drag daughter, I would say there’s got to be something to do with bringing, bringing an amount of like status or respect to the house.” Skyler then went on to speak to the nature of the relationship stating:

It’s like a weird like capitalistic thing I think right, like I think Veblen would be really good here to talk about this. I know he talks about the husband and wife marriage where the wife goes out and does like, I think he talks about pecuniary status or something, but right like. The it’s almost like the wife, I’m sorry, the drag daughter is sort of doing stuff out in the world that kind of brings in honorific status back to the house, so it’s kind of like a representation of the family.

Skyler’s sociological background informs their theoretical understanding of drag daughters relationship with their drag mother. The drag daughter is ultimately tasked with representing and bringing status to the drag house. The statement also highlights how drag houses and families are similar, while providing an overview of the dominant systems that help structure drag houses. Skyler further highlights the comparability of drag houses to traditional biological families when they stated:

[Drag daughter responsibilities are] like the long arm of the family. So in a sense, you know, like maintain those relationships, right. Maintain the houses name or status or imagine. But then again kind of like you are working for a group in that sense. Right, you are having to maintain the status or role of that group you are working for I guess would be a way to talk about it.

Skyler directly speaks to the reach of families to compare how drag daughters represent

65

their drag mothers, and goes on to speak about the status that comes with the house. The house status is vital to understanding how drag daughters represent their drag houses since the status of a house will dictate if that house is known. If the house is relatively unknown, the daughter’s actions do not affect the houses status as negatively as if the house’s status was high. It should be noted that even when participants did not truly understand drag daughter responsibilities, their responses still reflected those of the other participants. For instance, Lorenzo overwhelmingly stated he was not exactly sure what they did, but assumed “[Drag daughters] they are meant to like up hold the name, the status of that family. Make sure that they are representing that family correctly.”

Lorenzo’s assumption demonstrates the community’s views and knowledge of drag houses and their members. Although he was not completely sure, his assumption aligned with other participants’ views of drag daughters’ responsibilities towards the drag house.

Interestingly, Geovanni, a drag mother, focused more on a drag daughter’s and drag son’s (Geovanni was the only drag queen to mention sons) representation of his drag identity within the community rather than its effect on the house as a whole. Geovanni stated:

Like if they did not do a good job, it reflects on you. So if they did a good job, it reflects on you. If they got drunk one night, it reflects on you. If they didn’t know their lyrics, it reflects on you. So it’s like I always try to make sure I talk to them like “okay you are getting noticed but I am also getting notices.”

Geovanni’s views of how any aspect of his drag children’s actions are also a reflection on him demonstrate the role requirements that he sees drag daughters and drag sons must take on. As a known drag queen, his drag children become an appendage of who he is and what he has done. When discussing his drag children’s representation of him,

Geovanni shared, “it puts you more in the forefront because if they see your drag family 66

or drag sons or drag daughters doing stuff, it all comes back to you.” His drag children can thus be understood as a part of his drag identity. Geovanni’s views of his drag children’s responsibilities also refer to his responsibilities to teach them to be proper, as their behavior ultimately reflects upon him and his role.

Drag children’s representation of their house also speaks to their dynamics within the community. The participants mainly suggested that drag daughters’ representation of their drag mother indicated, to an extent, that drag daughter’s inform their drag mothers about their potential actions within the community. Geovanni exemplifies the assumption of drag children telling their drag mother what they will do, as his drag sons have acted in pornographic movies while being members of the house or while negotiating their membership in the house. Geovanni overviews the instance when he said:

It’s funny because two of my boys, my drag sons actually ended up doing, they actually ended up doing porn and that went around everywhere. That’s how they started to get known and it was kind of embarrassing “I was like oh my god.” So yeah, it was like that happened with them, so they started getting know because of that.

He then stated “yeah they knew that “oh my god I know that boy.” “oh my god its part of the family” yeah. It was like that.” Geovanni expressed that their involvement in adult films was not something negative to him and so the family would not be affected.

However, he did explain that his drag son told him (before entering the house or doing the pornography) that they were engaging in this action. Geovanni’s drag son’s actions demonstrated the reach of the house’s status and visibility in the community as they were identified in the movies as house members.

Distinguishing Between Drag Families

Although this study focused on drag houses as a form of family creation within

67

the drag community, the participants all implied that they had drag families (families of choice within the drag community that were not formally structured) that were not drag houses (formally structured drag mother and daughter houses). When explaining drag houses, Skyler said, “For me, it’s more of what does my queer family look like. Like who are my people that I can rely on.” Skyler went on to establish the family aspect of the non-profit organization they are part of when they said:

Let’s put it this way, I showed up in a city where I had never met any sisters to go [redacted time] and I will be damn if there weren’t six sisters, five sisters, I’m sorry, in full face, in full drag ready to go to the funeral with me who I had never met.

Their drag family embodies the supportive and community aspects of drag houses but is disassociated from drag houses. Skyler makes the distinction of calling it their drag family. Several participants would make a distinction between their drag families and drag houses but did not elaborate on those distinctions when asked follow up questions.

The participants, who were not part of a drag house, noted that their drag family was not an “official” drag house. When asked if her drag queen performance group was a drag house, Sasha stated “it’s not like I am part of like an official drag house, where we would be the house of [redacted group name], but definitely [redacted group name] is a family.” For Sasha, a drag family was not an “official drag house” but was still a family structure built around helping and supporting one another. Lorenzo also mentioned that the person who mentored him during the beginning of his career was not his drag mother.

Lorenzo said “it wasn’t like a whole drag mother thing. She was just kind enough to help me out.” His need to explain that the person who mentored him when he first began was not his drag mother, but a friend suggests the clear distinction between drag houses

(formally structured houses where members have clear responsibilities) and other drag 68

families (informal families of choice within the drag community).

The participants in drag houses also expressed that they had drag family members who were not part of their direct drag house. Drag family members were viewed as informal members of families of choice that did not follow the structured roles found in drag houses (drag mother and drag daughter). For instance, Geovanni stated:

Yeah because I have other drag siblings that don’t have my name but are still part of the house…they are not like my daughters but they are part of the family… because they, I helped them learn, which kind of are my daughters but they did not take the term, so we are just... So we are all still family and stuff.

Geovanni’s quote demonstrates the complexities of drag houses and the individual definition that goes into understanding them.

Families of Origin

Although this study focused on drag queens and their experiences within the

LGBTQ+ community, I also asked participants about their families of origin to help situate their experiences. All participants expressed that their drag family had good relationships with some of their families of origins. When asked about his family of origin, Lorenzo responded:

Oh they are very supportive. Yeah, they, like right from the beginning you know, they’ve known… But yeah, no my sisters have been very supportive of my drag. They bought, they bought me like my first make-up palette. They gave me, like one of my sisters gave me like a bunch of clothes, they’ve been to my shows. Yeah, they went to my first few shows as well, so yeah, yeah. Very supportive.

Lorenzo’s current supportive relationship with some of his family members was a common theme among participants, but these relationships did not always start positive.

The participants expressed that they had positive relationships with those parents that they were not estranged from and a majority of their siblings. For instance, Geovanni said, “I talk to my mom; I am living with her now. She is kind of like my best friend. I 69

talk to my sisters and I talk to my brothers, not so much.” Manny also expressed that he has a supportive relationship with his family when he explained:

…my brother is in the army, he loves me and supports me. My dad also calls me and talks about Gaga all the time, since she was at the Super bowl and they are, my Tias [aunts], go to all my shows now. My mom came to a show, so right now it is a beautiful, beautiful mixes.

The participants overwhelmingly had positive relationships with their parents and sibling when interviewed.

Several participants expressed that their current positive relationships with their families of origin developed over years of negotiation and turmoil. The participants emphasized that their parents and siblings began to accept them as they became more knowledgeable about the LGBTQ+ community and drag queens. Geovanni stated that he has a great relationship with his mother now, but explained that previously they did not:

We didn’t because she kicked me out at 17 for being gay…and we went a long time not speaking, until she realized being gay was okay, and just learning about being gay and along came drag and she still kind of didn’t understand that but then she understood, so now she is cool.

Several participants also explained that their identity as a drag queen was a large factor in their families of origin initially rejecting them or cutting off ties with them. Manny discussed his journey of coming out to his family as initially difficult:

I would say I am blessed. It was a very hard path in the begin… but I think it was really cool for us to have gotten our taught skin very early. There was a lot of problems when I was a kid…. I felt like I had to come out twice cause first coming out was pretty hard. My dad didn’t talk to me for about a week or two because he didn’t know how to but he soon realized it and everything. As soon as I came out as a drag queen they didn’t talk to me for a month, so they both kind of disowned me and they were kind of like “we raised a guy, not a girl.” Yeah like just basically telling me everything negative in the book, and like they just didn’t understand…

Manny’s feelings of coming out twice, first as homosexual and then as a drag queen.

70

When asked about his relationship with his family of origin, Lorenzo responded:

It’s there. I’m close to my sisters, my mom and I are okay and that’s pretty much it. I don’t really talk to the rest of my family, and I have a huge family. But I know a lot of people in my family because they are very religious they don’t understand the whole drag thing and they, you know, being gay was enough for them, so when they found out about the drag, they, you know, kind of went their way.

Lorenzo’s experience of coming out as a drag queen shows how that was the main reason they did not have a relationship with their extended family. Similarly, Skyler explained that their association with a non-profit that uses religious symbols in drag was the reason they were not in contact with their extended family. Skyler said:

I kind of wasn’t close to them anyways, but you know, its I think it’s not so much the drag thing as it is the [redacted religious figure] thing which I is also as far as I am concerned, their issue and not really mine.

It should be noted that Skyler did postulate that their strained relationship with their extend family could be a cause of their differing political beliefs. Ultimately, the participants’ relationships with some of their families of origins were characterized as positive since their families had gone through years of identity negation and learning about the LGBTQ+ community.

LGBTQ+ Community

The LGBTQ+ Community theme comes from the codes and code frequency found in the community code groups (Appendix H). The theme is divided into three main community data findings: the participants’ construction of community, the participants’ views of themselves as voices for the LGBTQ+ community, and the discrimination that participants’ felt within the drag and LGBTQ+ community.

Building Community

The drag queen community is often portrayed in society as overwhelmingly 71

supportive of its members. The participants all expressed that when they entered the drag community, they found that the drag queen community was welcoming and some drag queens offered them help. When asked if anyone helped him when he first began drag,

Lorenzo explains:

Yeah, there was one queen in particular I would go see a lot, her name was [redacted drag name] and she kind of helped me, mold me. I guess, in a way, you know she told me what to do and what not to do. She was the one that told me “make sure you show up everywhere in drag. Make sure you let people know you are there. Talk to them about getting bookings.” She helped me make my pads, so yeah, she gave me my body.

Lorenzo demonstrates the supportive nature of the community and the willingness for some drag queens to help others. Similar to Lorenzo, Sasha highlights how the drag queen community is helpful and supportive:

I do have a support group for sure, absolutely…so everyone really does kind of lend their knowledge when they can I find and it’s a good thing that people might not except out of, you know Los Angeles. They might think queens here are cold and distances, but no there’s is a lot of like there is a lot of closeness. There is a lot of family…

Sasha discussed the competitiveness of drag on stage, but addresses that there are groups of drag queens willing to help new queens entering the community. The participants often expressed that they were able to find a supportive group within the community and the group ultimately helped them better themselves.

Skyler credited the help and support they received when they began drag with their willingness to help new drag queens. Skyler explains:

But yeah I did, I was able to reach out to people. I was very lucky for that and knowing that I make myself available for instance new [redacted drag non-profit member] who come into the house now. I am certainly not known for my make- up abilities.

72

Skyler affirms the cycle of help and supports that the community fosters as older drag queens help mentor new drag queens in their performance. Sasha interestingly ended her interview by stating:

I mean, I feel like, yeah, we definitely like move as a unit and there are subunits and I am really like more real and strong. I don’t know, it’s a crazy network and you can tap into that vein and really get in there, and you can like ride that stream and, just get into that train with everyone and see where it takes you.

Sasha highlighted the connectivity of the drag community and its support for teaching and learning. Additionally, the participants referenced the connectivity of the community throughout their interviews.

The drag community has adopted the normative family term sister to reference one another or specific drag queens as a tool of community building. Drag queens use sister as a pronoun in everyday interactions with other drag queens. The term sister is used to reference a bond between drag queens as Lorenzo explains:

I’ve come across a lot of people who are, you know, very supportive and there for each other. You know, there is a reason a lot of us call each other sister. It’s because we’ve worked together so much …and we all, a lot of us that started together or around the same time, we all still help each other out, you know. No matter where we are, we still stay in contact just to make sure that we’re okay, if anyone needs anything.

Lorenzo highlights how the term sister demonstrates different levels of relationships and commitments within the drag community. Several participants reiterated the finding that they did not call everyone in the drag community sisters, they only called their drag queen friends sister. Furthermore, one participant clarified the difference between the communities that use of sister and the term sister in a drag family. Geovanni said:

A drag sister is people you get close with. Sometimes they are not your drag family, ‘cause they are different to drag families. But you can you get close to each other and you call each other drag sisters because you help each other out…And they are just, you learn from each other. You get pointers, they help 73

you out and stuff like that, so you grow together and you learn from each other.

Geovanni clarification of how the pronoun sister could be used differently, highlights the different levels of relationships found in the drag community. The participants thus emphasized the different relationships rooted in the use of the term sister within the drag community

Although the drag queen community was predominantly depicted as being supportive, several participants did highlight the competitive atmosphere that comes with performing. The participants conveyed that that drag community is inherently competitive as drag queen performances are framed within competitions and they must compete for jobs at venues. Lorenzo exemplifies the underlining competitive nature that comes with drag performances when he explains:

But also, there is that competitive, you know, tone there where, let’s say a lot of us who have like nights like club nights that happen on the same night, you know, as much as we want each other to succeed, we also want to make sure that the other person, ourselves are doing better, you know.

Lorenzo highlights that members of the drag community are supportive of one another, but that work does require drag queens to prioritize their success to an extent. Skyler furthers the discussion of drag as inherently competitive in when they said:

I’ve always hoped it would be more friendly than it is. Although, I am obviously very delighted to find moments where I see a lot of support and like friendly community developed which I think is changing a bit, but by its very nature it is. Also drag seems to be about a lot of competitions, you know. The way to exist in drag is through competition.

Skyler explained that the drag community could be supportive, but the nature of work required them to self-preserve and compete. Manny went as far to call the current competitive atmosphere found in the community as “dog-eat-dog” since he felt

“everything has become that.” Ultimately, the participants’ viewed the community as 74

supportive but highlighted that the drag community was inherently built on competition for jobs and recognition.

Voice of the Community

The drag queen identity proved to have an overwhelmingly positive effect on the participants’ views of their position within the LGBTQ+ community. The participants expressed that their drag queen identity gave them a platform. Lorenzo exemplifies this finding when he said “I have a platform; I have a voice.” The participants also emphasized that their drag queen identity gave them a voice that stood at the forefront of their community. When asked how his drag queen identity affects his status in the community, Geovanni answered:

We stand in the forefront because like doing shows and clubs, we make sure we take care of them as a safe haven for people to come and have a good time and sometimes they don’t feel welcomed and scared. We always show them that like you can come here and have a great time with us and like one of the drag queens that started the stonewall riots, the first one was a drag queens and that’s what I like about it. We are the front runners, we are the ones that are in front of the entertainment and drag, in the gay world which is really great ‘cause we are hard works.

Geovanni’s statement reflects previous research findings that drag queens are increasingly associated with the Stonewall Riots that began the LGBTQ+ movement

(Rupp and Taylor 2003). The reference to the Stonewall Riots interestingly places drag queens at the forefront of the LGBTQ+ movement as the riot was started by transgender women of color and drag queens. Several participants stressed that drag queens helped create safe spaces within the community.

Geovanni’s statement also underlines the need for a safe space within the community and drag queens place in providing that space. For instance, Lorenzo said:

It’s kind of an empowering thing. Although I’ve never been one to like not feel 75

good about myself. I feel it has, I feel a lot more confident as a drag queen and it helps me in my day to day life knowing that I have a voice, you know, for certain, you know, when things happen out here, like with the Orlando shooting or we have to you know, we have to like the trump marches and stuff. People listen more because I have something to offer, you know. I have a venue to speak and bring people together, so I guess what it means is that I can, I don’t know, to make a difference in myself and in the community as well

This quote highlights how drag queens create spaces for community members to come and discuss events affecting the community. Overall, the participants expressed that their drag queen identity gave them a platform within the community to express themselves.

Biases in the Community

Although the LGBTQ+ community is often seen as a space of acceptance, the participants highlight how some drag queens have negative experiences in the community. Several participants expressed that the drag community was biased against women performing in drag, Faux queens, and Bio queens. When talking about Faux queens and Bio queens, Skyler said “I would argue that those who identify as either Bio queens or Faux queens, and by extension as well, drag kings, do not experience as much support as drag queens.” Several participants agreed with Skyler that women in the drag community did not experience as much support as the gay men who did drag. However, the participants did explain that the community is becoming more accepting of Faux queen and Bio queens. For instance, Geovanni said, “I have a couple of friends who are

Faux queens that sometimes, they have been shunned by the gay community, but now more and more it is getting a lot better.” Geovanni demonstrates how drag communities can be discriminatory towards particular individuals rather than being accepting. Sasha who self-identities as a Faux queen, explained her experiences within the LGBTQ+ community by sharing:

76

It has been subtle, not direct. Definitely subtle, it’s definitely there. Like the bias is there, the question is there, and what I appreciate though it that, you know, the presence of people like me or other girls who just want to go ahead and do it, it makes people open up those conversations. Like, it makes guys deal with their own sort of prejudice and bias even though they want to be accepted for being different as far as the, you know, hyper masculine male community is concerned, but then they look at a girl who wants to be part to their community and they go “you’re a girl.”

Sasha’s experiences demonstrate the bias found in the drag community and her struggle to fight for her place in the community. Sasha credits the bias in the community for her not considering drag sooner. Sasha shares, “I just can’t believe it took me this many years to even think about it…because I’m a girl. I never even considered it as a pattern to entertainment because of that.” Consequently, the participants underlined how the drag community has some bias and reservations against certain individuals entering the community, but the participants voiced that those biases are fading.

Furthermore, two participants expressed that a drag queen identity could adversely affect a drag queen’s dating life in the community. Lorenzo explained that he noticed that some people in the drag community had difficulties in their dating life and explained that location mattered. Lorenzo shared:

I guess because there are certain places like, I mean even in Los Angeles, the greater Los Angeles area, there are certain pockets, you know, let’s say like West Hollywood you will probably find people who are not willing to date a drag queen because in their head, because some people are just, you know, like we said earlier too, some people don’t know, they are not educated. In their head, drag queen means being transgender or cross dresser or transvestite. So they don’t really get that this is just for work, you know. So they have a hard time meeting someone that will take them serious and then also you, then you have your, what we call “ chaser.” They’re the ones that assume because you are dressed up, that’s how you live your life and they want to be with you that way only, you know, but that’s not who you are.

Lorenzo’s explanation of why drag queens have a difficult time dating highlights the misunderstanding of drag queens in the broader LGBTQ+ community. The 77

misunderstanding of drag queens’ identity specifically leads some to approach them for romantic relationships based on those misunderstandings. Geovanni highlights a different negative effect that a drag queen identity could have on dating when he says:

Not really, I mean like maybe dating wise because sometimes guys don’t know that you do drag and they are like “oh” and some guys don’t like that or uh, and then you are like “oh you are a drag queen and you’re a drag mother and you have all these people and you know all these people” and sometimes they don’t want to hang out with you because you know too many people.

Geovanni spoke directly to his trouble with finding someone in the community more so than others because he was so well connected. His connections as a drag queen in the community became an intimidating factor to getting close to him. Geovanni’s drag identity did not directly affect his dating life; rather, his popularity affected his dating life. Ultimately, Lorenzo and Geovanni demonstrate the negative effect that having a drag queen identity could have on drag queens dating life in society.

78

DISCUSSION

The themes that arose from the interview data demonstrate the complex transformative aspects of the drag queen identity that actively challenge normative gender and family systems. The discussion section follows the organization of the findings that moves from the personal views of drag queens to their collective experiences in the LGBTQ+ community. The Transforming Identity as a Source of

Empowerment and Resistance section shows how drag queens actively use their drag queen identities to challenge gender norms. The Drag Identity Prioritization section displays how drag queens prioritize their drag identity over their other identities and illustrates the importance of their drag identity. The Drag House and Families as a

Process of Negotiation section demonstrate how drag queens replicate and deconstruct normative understandings of the family as they construct families of choice using normative family terminology. The Welcoming Environment of the LGTBQ+ Community section demonstrates how the drag queen community creates a supportive environment for its new members while highlighting were they situate themselves within the community. The Collective Meaning Making using a Normative Term section shows how queens view themselves as having a platform in the community to help create change and build community. The “Queering” Drag section demonstrates the biases found within the drag community and the disruptive abilities of the visibility of alternative bodies in the drag community. Therefore, the study demonstrates how drag queens, members of a subgroup, challenge normative systems through identity negation and community building within a larger marginalized group. Additionally, this study interestingly

79

demonstrates how drag house roles draw on heteronormative tropes and conventions of the family in their house dynamics.

Transforming Identity as a Source of Empowerment and Resistance

This section presents the findings that support the drag queen literature that views drag as a transformative identity that challenges essentialist views of gender (Berkowitz and Belgrave 2010; Egner and Maloney 2016; Horowitz 2013; Taylor and Rupp 2005).

The framing of the disruptive abilities of drag as a conscious and active choice among the participants’ highlights drag queens’ agency in challenging norms and their willingness to stand in opposition to society. The participants’ view of their drag queen identity demonstrates the fragility of essentialist views of gender as they use their drag performances to actively deconstruct gender for the audience. The participants show how they actively use the normative gender scripts to do gender on stage and show its instability. One participant (Sasha) interestingly framed how drag queens use gender stereotypes in their performances to mock essentialist views of gender as “gender acting.”

The participants’ mention of “gender acting” is an example of West and Zimmerman’s

(1987) term of “doing gender” since drag queens use social scripts to inform their performances. The participants thus used the scripted cultural ideals of femininity to disrupt audience members’ cultural ideals of gender and to demonstrate how gender is an accomplishment. Drag queen performances were framed within this study as an example of West and Zimmerman’s (1987) doing gender as the participants wanted to actively accomplish different gender scripts associated with certain bodies. The participants’ statements illustrate how their drag performances were focused on deconstructing the socially-defined behaviors associated with femininity. The findings of this study support

80

the literature that drag queen’s use culturally scripted gender roles to disrupt gender assumptions (Rupp et al. 2010).

The participants’ views of their identity outside of drag also speaks to their commitment to deconstructing gender. Some participants framed their disruption as occurring outside of drag as they disrupt societal norms in their everyday life. The disruption of gender norms outside of drag demonstrates the participants’ commitment to

“queering” (Hall and Wolfreys 2016) the notions of normality surrounding gender in their everyday lives. Skyler’s commitment to disrupting gender leads them to queer themselves, as they imply that they are not constrained by society’s views of their identity possibilities similar to Hall and Wolfreys understanding of “queering” (2016).

This study also highlights how drag queens use drag to disrupt other normative systems, like workplace identities. Skyler reveals how they use drag to disrupt the notions of normality surrounding the identity of a professor when she willingly came out as a drag queen at her workplace. Skyler wanted their students to have a conversation about what is associated with a professor when they ever found their drag queen pictures or performances (that sometimes involve nudity). The participants also showed how drag queens use gender stereotypes as tools of mockery to actively challenge gender norms rather than to reinforce them. Their use of gender stereotypes is framed under the umbrella of disruption rather than reinforcement, as they use their performances to show their socially constructed boundaries around gender. Therefore, this study found that drag queens actively deconstruct notions of normality surrounding gender as they use culturally scripted traits associated to femininity to deconstruct gender.

81

Drag Identity Prioritization

The salience and commitment to their drag identity was framed in their prioritization of their drag queen identity over their other identities. In their discussion of their responsibilities as a drag queen, the participants demonstrated the concept of identity salience through language. They framed their drag performances and associated requirements (getting ready and being available for gigs) as a priority over other roles, making the dynamics they adopted to keep in touch with others an example of their prioritization of drag. Drag queen identity shifted their lives to accommodate for the requirements that drag brought with it, such as having to work nights and sleep during the day. The participants discuss their time commitment to their drag queen identity when they overviewed the time they designate to doing drag. Some participants expressed that the time commitment that doing drag required would adversely affect their work and relationships. At the same time, they expressed that their responsibility to drag was greater. Additionally, the participants’ disruption of gender norms illustrated the prioritization of their identity as they chose to place themselves in opposition to societal norms and place their personal benefit on the line to disrupt gender norms. Therefore, this study found that the participants’ prioritized their drag identity over other identities.

Drag Families and Houses as a Process of Negotiation

The Drag House and Families as a Process of Negotiation section demonstrates how drag queens’ construct drag houses as families of choice and how they structure family dynamics as a replication and deconstruction of heteronormative notions of the family. The drag house discussion is a vital aspect of this study as literature on drag houses is limited (Rupp and Taylor 2003) and focuses on houses in Ballroom culture

82

(Arnold and Bailey 2009; Bailey 2013). This study expands the lens of houses from only occurring in Balls (Arnold and Bailey 2009; Bailey 2013) to other areas of the drag community.

The language that participants used throughout their discussion of drag houses cemented drag houses as families of choice. This study found that the defining a drag house is heavily reliant on collective meaning making in the community since there is no single definition of a drag houses. Drag queens build kinship networks void of romantic and biological relations, but rather associations based on love, solidarity, and shared memories found in other research (Rupp and Taylor 2003). The participants explained that love in a drag house comes in the form of support and commitment to one another’s success. The participants’ expressed that support found in drag houses can be emotional and/or economical. The supportive nature of drag houses presented a fundamental benefit for its members since drag queens already hold a marginalized status within the marginalized LGBTQ+ community. The drag daughter benefits from the drag mothers’ experience in the drag community, while also benefitting from having access to other drag house members’ skills. The sharing of skills at no cost is an important aspect of drag houses, as its members view helping one another as a common good. Furthermore, the finding that one drag house lived together in the same residence (an apartment) demonstrates the support of drag house members found in other research (Arnold and

Bailey 2009; Bailey 2013; Rupp and Taylor 2003). The participant demonstrates that those in drag houses are “there for you,” similarly to Weston’s [1991] (1997) work on families of choice. Although the drag queen community is commonly described as supportive, the relationships created in drag houses supersede those found in the drag

83

community. Ultimately, drag houses are framed in the language of families of choice as drag queens build houses and relationships based on non-romantic relationships of support and connectedness.

Although Weston [1991] (1997) stressed that families of choice should not be compared to other kinship relations, drag houses heavily rely on heteronormative family terms and roles to build their families. Similar to Bailey’s (2013) study on Ballroom culture houses, this study found that drag houses adopt heteronormative notions of the family in their familial roles and structures. The study found that drag houses consist of drag mothers (an experienced drag queen) and a drag daughter (new drag queen). The drag mother and drag daughter relationships mimicked mother-daughter dynamics that are found in normative family structures.

Similar to the findings in Bailey’s (2013) study, the drag mother identity in this study were framed within domesticated notions of gender since they were tasked with caring for their children and becoming accountable for their children’s actions. The drag mother becomes accountable for their drag daughter’s actions in the community, so they teach their drag daughters to validate their status in the community. The drag mothers’ accountability for their drag daughter reflects the community involvement in drag houses since the community will fault the drag mother for their daughters’ negative behaviors, similar to heteronormative mother-daughter relationships. In heteronormative families, the children represent the parents, so the parent must teach them to be “proper,” as one participant stated he did at the risk of their status being effected. The drag daughter becomes a locus of potential critique of the mother as the daughter is an extension of the drag mother in the community.

84

Furthermore, the reproduction of heteronormative notions of the family in drag houses is visible in one participant’s explanation that their children are their legacy. The legacy mentality reflects heteronormative families as drag mothers want to pass on to their views of society to their children like heteronormative parents want to do to their children. Moreover, one of the participant’s explained that he acts like his mother in his drag house through his use of normative role traits associated with mothers in heteronormative families. This study found that drag queens use the normative identity categories found in heterosexual families rather than refute them, which demonstrates their potential reinforcement of those categories. Therefore, the roles of drag mother and drag daughter adopt normative understandings of mother-daughter relationships and reproduce the ideologies associated with heteronormative families.

Drag houses’ reliance on heteronormative family terms and roles to build their families is apparent in the importance of drag house status and the exclusivity of drag houses. The focus on drag house status demonstrates how drag houses are not equal in the community. These findings imply there are systems of classification that stratify houses based on their members’ success. One participant even expressed that they saw no benefit in being part of a drag house if the house name had a low status. The focus on status reflects drag houses’ reproduction of heteronormative families’ status stratification based on economic class. The participants’ explanation that drag houses were “exclusive” also reflects traditional biological families’ exclusivity as drag houses were only open to some members of the community. The exclusivity of drag houses stems from the negotiation process that drag queens undergo when creating houses. Additionally, the importance of status informs who is allowed into a drag houses. The negotiation process that drag

85

mothers undertake in creating a house is based on their connection to their drag daughter and their view of their drag daughters’ ability to grow. Their focus on their daughters’ abilities demonstrates the importance of the house status as mothers want daughters that they can teach, so they will bring status to the house. In-line Bailey’s (2013) findings, while these relationships are based on love and support, the daughters’ abilities become a factor in entering the house. The drag daughters thus benefit from the clout around a drag house name and their mother also becomes more well-known. Therefore, drag houses utilize and replicate heteronormative notions of the family in their drag houses, but there are aspects of drag queen houses that deconstruct fundamental notions of the family.

Although drag houses rely on heteronormative family roles and structures to construct their houses, drag houses do deconstruct some notions of heteronormative families in their creation of houses. Drag mothers queer the normalization of heterosexuality in families as they embody mother roles in gay male bodies. Drag mothers are predominantly gay men that take on “mothering” roles outside of their drag performances, so they disassociate the female body with motherhood. Moreover, drag houses queer the notion of the family as they voluntarily enter their families of choice, which differs from the involuntarily focus on biology in heteronormative families.

Furthermore, drag daughters are seen as equal agents in negotiating the drag house; something that is not present in heteronormative families. The voluntarily construction of drag houses hence the involuntary notion of normality found in heteronormative families since children enter the family voluntarily. Additionally, drag mothers and daughters deconstruct the systems of classifications (biology and procreation) found in heterosexual families as they voluntarily enter their families of choice through negotiation

86

and relationship building. Drag queens employ the “we” tool of agency found in the literature on families we choose (Weston [1991] 1997) and other houses literature

(Arnold and Bailey 2009; Bailey 2013; Rupp and Taylor 2003). The findings on the introduction of drag house members also reflect the drag queens’ motivation and construction of their drag house. One participant specifically stated that he sees a part of himself in his drag daughters, demonstrating a bond that he creates with the people he asks to be part of his drag house. Therefore, drag houses deconstruct some aspects of the notion of heteronormative families in their construction of their houses and transgressive identity.

Drag houses also support Weston’s [1991] (1997) views that families of choice are chronological successors to their families of origin as drag queens are accepted or rejected by them. Several participants expressed that many drag queens are drawn to drag houses as they have a strained or no relationship with their families of origin. This finding lends itself to support the notion that drag houses could be chronological successors to families of origin in the drag community. Although several participants expressed that their current relationships with their families of origin were positive, they explained that there was a journey of acceptance and understanding associated with their families. Several participants had positive relationships with their some of their siblings and parents, but mainly expressed they had a strained or no relationship with their extended families of origin. The participants expressed that their parents and siblings began to accept them as they became more knowledgeable about the community.

Interestingly, this study did find that the participants with drag houses did not include their families of origin in their drag house even though they had positive relationships

87

with them. Ultimately, this study furthers the understanding of the construction of families of choice within marginalized groups, as drag houses operate alongside families of origin while reproducing and deconstructing heteronormative notions of the family.

Welcoming Environment of the LGTBQ+ Community

The Welcoming Environment of the LGTBQ+ community section analyzes drag queens’ construction of community while highlighting their views of where they stand in the community. The participants overwhelmingly expressed that the drag queen community was a supportive environment. The help that drag queens received when they first entered the community was the fundamental reason for several drag queens expressing that the community was supportive. The support that many of the participants received was what motivated them to help others once they were established in the community. The supportive environment of the community can be viewed as a cycle since experienced queens help new queens, who then go on to become the experienced queens that help others. The supportive environment of the community establishes the connectivity of the community. Although the drag queen community is predominantly viewed as supportive, the participants highlighted the inherent competitive atmosphere often found in the drag community. The participants explained that since drag queens perform in shows and competitions, the community is inherently competitive.

Furthermore, the participants’ perception that they are at the forefront of the LGBTQ+ community demonstrates their views of their own status within the community. The participants viewed their drag queen identity as giving them a platform in the LGBTQ+ community where they could address social issues like violence against the community and equal rights. The participants also placed their identities at the center of the LGBTQ+

88

movement and expressed that drag queens were tasked with creating safe spaces for

LGBTQ+ community members to feel welcomed, even when the community itself was viewing them negatively. Therefore, this study found that drag queens’ view the community as welcoming and situate themselves at the front of the LGBTQ+ community based on the visibility of their drag identity.

Collective Meaning Making using a Normative Terms.

The drag queen community’s use of the term sister demonstrates how the community uses normative family terms to frame their relationships while queering the systems of classification associated with the term. The term sister could be viewed through the analytical model of queer theory as drag queens queer the systems of classification that are associated with the term sister like the gender system and normative binary sex categories. The use of the term sister problematizes the normalization of heteronormative familial roles as drag queens, often gay men, are addressing one another with the pronoun. The term sister becomes dissociated with genetic family system. Rather, the term reflects drag queens’ close bonds with one another. The term frames their relationship positively as drag queens only refer to a select number of individuals as sister. Additionally, the deconstruction of the normative family term sister is evident as some participants in this study expressed that some drag queens use the term to address the entire drag queen community. The use of the term to talk to all members of the drag community disassociates the kinship aspect of the term and makes the term mundane. However, the use of sister in the drag community could also be framed as reproductive of classified systems as it is used to strengthen its members bonds

89

with one another based on the behavioral expectations14 that the term has in society. The behavioral expectations of love and support help ground the term in the community as the participants overwhelmingly agreed that they used the term only to address those they are close to. Nonetheless, the use of sister demonstrates a deconstruction of the classified normative family term sister, as the community uses the term to address non-familial drag queens.

“Queering” Drag

The participants in this study demonstrate the biases found within the drag community that sanctions who can be part of the community and provides a critique of drag. Several participants explained that the drag community was often biased against women performing in drag like their male counterparts. Faux queens and Bio queens were framed as receiving little support from the community. Faux queens and Bio queens’ identities as drag queens were often questioned, as one participant expressed that she did not like to disclose to everyone her drag queen identity in apprehension of having her identity delegitimized. Faux queens and Bio queens represent a fascinating critique of the drag community since some members of the community disregard them. Faux queens and Bio queens are potentially “queering” drag as they become more visible and expand on the notions of normality found in the community. Although the drag community is framed as transgressive (Berkowitz and Belgrave 2010; Taylor and Rupp 2005), the delegitimization of Faux queens and Bio queens demonstrates how the community still creates rules and classifications of normality that sanction and limit the community’s reception of others. The bias found in the drag community was also credited with not

14 Behavioral expectation is a behavior one is expected to employ because it has a shared meaning associated with a classified term in social interactions (Stryker 1968). 90

allowing one participant (Sasha) to see drag as a viable choice for her until another drag queen pointed it out. The constraint Sasha felt about seeing herself in drag indicates the drag community’s potential sanctioning of the drag queen identity. Sasha’s “self” was constrained to fit the notions of normality that only gay males could be drag queens in the drag community. Faux queens and Bio queens’ visibility thus begins to deconstruct the systems of classification that only allow gay males to be drag queens. It should be noted that the participants explained that there was a shift occurring within the drag community that was leading to more acceptance of Faux queens and Bio queens. The participants also explained that having a drag queen identity could adversely affect their dating life as they are more well-known in the community and underlying misconceptions of drag queens could be the root of the attraction.

91

LIMITATIONS

Although this research produced interesting findings on drag queens and families, the study had several limitations. The limitations of this study revolved around two main areas: low participant rates and difficulties maintaining confidentiality among the participants themselves.

The main limitation of this study was the few participants who were interviewed.

The low participation rate for the study was influenced by a lack of trust on the part of study participants of me as a researcher. Additionally, the recruitment process was plagued by numerous problems related to reaching and keeping potential participants. I found that potential participants were rescheduling meetings without follow through and some stopped communication indefinitely. I found myself having to contact some potential participants’ multiple times and I was forced to stop communication when there was no follow through in fear of overreaching. Additionally, I had difficulty recruiting participants outside of the snowball sampling due to the small size of the drag queen in the city of Los Angeles who are part of drag families. Furthermore, the small participant rate contributed to the lack of diverse voices in the study.

The second limitation of the study was the difficulty I had maintaining confidentiality between the participants since they all knew one another. The nature of snowball sampling means that participants will know one another, so the confidentiality of participants among their peer group becomes compromised to a certain extent. All the participants knew a majority of the other participants and knew that their voices would be featured in the study. The participants’ knowledge of who was part of the study also made me hesitant to include certain findings that could potentially cause some

92

contradictions among the participants’ responses and group identification. Therefore, keeping participants’ identities completely anonymous to others in the study was not possible. That being said, their identities are not revealed in the research as pseudonymous were used and other identifying information such as the name of the drag houses were not used.

93

AREAS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

The findings of this study highlight the need for future research on drag queens to focus on their constructions and maintenance of drag houses. The findings highlight three specific areas of future research within drag house literature; first, the focus on who is part of drag houses; second, the meaning associated with taking on the last name of a drag mother; third, the probable association between some drag queen’s problematic relationship with their families of origin and their construction of drag houses.

Furthermore, the findings reflect the need for further research into those who associates with certain subculture and those who disassociates with the subculture even though those around them associate them with the subculture. Ultimately, the study reflects a need for further research into drag house dynamics as their group traits can bring insight into subculture dynamics and families of choice.

The exploration of who is part of a drag house is a key area of research necessary to understanding drag houses dynamics. Knowing who is part of a drag house is fundamentally needed to understanding their roles and the house dynamics. Most participants demonstrated a common understanding that a drag mother and drag daughter(s) are the primarily relationship that defines a drag house. However, the finding that drag sons and drag fathers can also be part of drag houses needs to be explored in future research as they do not adopt drag queen personas similar to house fathers Bailey

(2013) found in his research. Geovanni explained that Drag sons and drag dads are close members of drag house mothers, so their involvement is void of a drag identity.

Understanding how drag sons and drag dads see their place in the house in comparison to drag daughters and mothers can have interesting implications for drag house members’

94

house roles and commitments. Drag sons’ and drag dads’ non-drag queen identity provides an additional layer to be explored in drag houses since drag mother-daughter relationships are reliant on a mentor – mentee relationship. Drag sons and drag dads do not belong to the drag queen community, so their relationship to the drag mother cannot be understood as a mentor-mentee relationship. Therefore, future research on drag houses should explore who is part of the drag house and focus on drag sons’ and drag dads’ roles.

The taking on of a drag mother’s “last name” and the name associated with a drag house are areas of future research that can bring insight into the clout of names and meaning of a name in the community. Interestingly, it is common for drag daughters to take on the “last name” or part of their drag mother’s name as a show of relativity and association. The meaning behind the practice of taking the drag mothers’ “last name” is a potential area of future research as it can show the meaning of taking on the name and the root of its practice. The taking of the “last name” can also potentially highlight the familial aspects of drag daughter-mother relationships and their commitment to their house. Likewise, the exploration of the clout and status associated with a drag house name is an important area to research since it reflects the power of a drag house. The drag house name is often the drag mother’s “last name”, so it is used as the calling card of the house and can show the influence associated with names in the drag community. Hence, future research on drag houses should study the influence associated with drag house names and the meaning associated with drag daughter’s taking on their drag mother’s name.

Future research on drag houses can also focus on the potential association

95

between drag queens’ positive or negative relationship with their families of origin and their drag houses. The study of drag houses would benefit from the exploration of drag queens’ families of origin as this can inform their dedication to their family of choice15.

Additionally, the exploration of drag queens’ relationship with their families of origin can potentially show why they are attracted to creating families of choice. Negative relationships with families of origin could be found as a prerequisite for drag families, as

Geovanni expressed “Sometimes people don’t have families and they just create these houses to make everybody belong and feel loved and cared for.” Therefore, future research on drag queens would benefit from exploring the potential connection between drag queens’ relationships with their families of origin and their drag house.

The identification with drag houses and drag subculture is an important area of future research as it can speak to drag queens’ views of the group and the community’s general view of that group. Interestingly in this study, a participant associated another participant with a group that the participant was not willing to identify with. A drag queens’ association with a group is important, but their reluctance to associate with a group can highlight potential bias among the community and drag queens’ personal views of groups. Hence, exploring the reluctance of some drag queens to identify with groups can shed light on views of the group and the commitment of some drag queens to the group.

15 Drag house 96

REFERENCES

Allen, Katherine and Ana Jaramillo-Sierra. 2015. “Feminist Theory and Research on

Family Relationships: Pluralism and Complexity.” Sex Roles 73(3-4):93-99.

Arnold, Emily A. and Marlon M. Bailey. 2009. “Constructing Home and Family: How

the Ballroom Community Supports African American GLBTQ Youth in the Face

of HIV/AIDS.” The Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services 21(2-3): 174.

Baumle, Amanda K. and D’Lane R. Compton. 2014. “Identity Versus Identification:

How LGBTQ Parents Identify Their Children on Census Surveys.” Journal of

Marriage & Family 76(1):94-104.

Berkowitz, Dana and Linda Liska Belgrave. 2010. “She Works Hard for the Money: Drag

Queens and the Management of Their Contradictory Status of Celebrity and

Marginality.” Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 39(2):159-186.

Bailey, Marlon. 2013. Gender, Performance, and Ballroom Culture in Detroit. University

of Michigan Press.

Barrett, Rusty. 1998. “Markedness and Styleswitching in Performances by African

American Drag Queens.” In Myers-Scotton, Carol, 1998. Codes and

Consequences: Choosing Linguistic Varieties. New York, US: Oxford University

Press.

Bishop, C.J., Mark Kiss, Todd G. Morrison, Damien M. Rushe, and Jacqueline Specht.

2014. “The Association Between Gay Men’s Stereotypic Beliefs About Drag

Queens and Their Endorsement of Hypermasculinity.” Journal of Homosexuality

61(4):554-567.

97

Braithwaite, D. O., Bach, B. W., Baxtern, L. A., DeVerniero, R., Hammonds, J. R.,

Josek, A. M., & Wolf, B. M. (2010). “Constructing Family: A Typology of

Voluntary Kin.” Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 27:388-407.

Bucholtz, Mary and Kira Hall. 2004. "Theorizing Identity in Language and Sexuality

Research." Language in Society 33(4):469.

Childs, Becky and Gerard Van Herk. (2014). “Work that -s!: Drag queens, Gender,

Identity, and Traditional Newfoundland English.” Journal of

Sociolinguistics 18(5):634-657.

Dempsey, Deborah. 2010. “Conceiving and Negotiating Reproductive Relationships:

Lesbians and Gay Men Forming Families with Children.” Sociology 44(6):1145-

1162.

Egner, Justine and Patricia Maloney (2016). “It Has No Color, It Has No Gender, It’s

Gender Bending: Gender and Sexuality Fluidity and Subversiveness in Drag

Performance.” Journal of Homosexuality 63(7):875-903.

Folgero, Tor. 2008. “Queer Nuclear Families? Reproducing and Transgressing

Heteronormativity.” Journal of Homosexuality 54 (1-2):124 -149.

Gammon, Mark A. and Kirsten L. Isgro. 2006. “Troubling the Canon.” Journal of

Homosexuality 52 (1-2):159-184.

Gillham, Bill. 2010. Continuum Research Methods Ser.: Case Study Research Methods

(1). London, GB: Bloomsbury Publishing Place.

Goffman, Erving. 1976. “Gender Display.” Studies in the Anthropology of Visual

Communications 3:69-77.

98

Green, Adam I. 2007. “Queer Theory and Sociology: Locating the Subject and the Self in

Sexuality Studies.” Sociological Theory 25(1):26-45.

Hall, Donald E., and Wolfreys, J. 2016. Queer Theories. Gordonsville, GB: Palgrave

Macmillan Ltd.

Halperin, David M. 2003. “The Normalization of Queer Theory.” Journal of

Homosexuality 45(2-4):339-343.

Handcock, Mark S. and Krista J. Gile. 2011. “Comment: On the Concept of Snowball

Sampling”. Sociological Methodology 41:367-371.

Hopkins, Steven J. (2004) “Let the Drag Race Begin”. Journal of Homosexuality 46(3-

4):135-149.

Horowitz, R. 2013. “The Trouble with “Queerness”: Drag and the Making of Two

Cultures.” Journal of Women in Culture & Society 38(2):303-326.

Jagose, Annmarie. 1996. Queer Theory: An Introduction. New York: New York

University Press.

Jagose, Annmarie. 2009. “Feminism’s Queer Theory.” Feminism & Psychology

19(2):157-174.

Kumbier, Alana. 2003. “One Body, Some Genders”. Journal of Homosexuality 43(3-

4):191-200.

Levine, Nancy E. 2008. “Alternative Kinship, Marriage, and Reproduction.” Annual

Review of Anthropology 37:375-389.

Mann, Stephen L. 2011. “Drag Queens’ Use of Language and the Performance of Blurred

Gendered and Racial Identities.” Journal of Homosexuality 58(6-7):793-811.

99

Nelson, Margaret K. 2012. “Whither Fictive Kin? Or, What’s in a Name?” Journal of

Family Issues 35(2):201-222.

Nepean, Greg. 2004. “It’s All Glamour, The Halifax Drag Community: A Study of

Identity, Community and Region.” Master’s Thesis, Department of Atlantic

Canada Studies, Saint Mary’s University, Halifx, Nova Scotia.

Niles, Richard. 2004. “Wigs, Laughter, and Subversion: Charles Busch and Strategies of

Drag Performance.” Journal of Homosexuality 46 (3-4):35-53.

Philbrook, Craig Gingrich. 2003. “Queer Theory and Performance.” Journal of

Homosexuality 45(2-4):353-356.

Rhyne, Ragan. 2004. “Racializing White Drag.” Journal of Homosexuality 46 (3/4):181-

194.

Rupp, Leila J. and Verta Taylor. 2003. Drag Queens at the 801 Cabaret. Chicago: The

University of Chicago Press.

Rupp, Leila J., Verta Taylor, and Eve Ilana Shapiro. 2010. “Drag Queens and Drag

Kings: The difference Gender Makes.” Sexualities 13(3):275-294.

Sandeep, Bakshi. 2004. “A Comparative Analysis of Hijras and Drag Queens: The

Subversive Possibilities and Limits of Parading Effeminacy and Negotiating

Masculinity.” Journal of Homosexuality 46(3-4):211-223.

Schacht, Steven P. 2004. “Beyond the Boundaries of the Classroom: Teaching About

Gender and Sexuality at a Drag Show.” Journal of Homosexuality 46 (3-4):225-

240.

Schneider, David. 1997. “The Power of Culture: Notes on Some Aspects of Gay and

Lesbian Kinship in America Today.” Cultural Anthropology 12:270-274.

100

Smith, Ralph R. 2003. “Queer Theory, Gay Movements, and Political Communication.”

Journal of Homosexuality 45(2-4):345-348.

Stacey, Judith. 2005. “The Families of Man: Gay Male Intimacy and Kinship in a Global

Metropolis”. The University of Chicago Press 30(3):1911-1935.

Stryker, Sheldon. 1980. Symbolic Interactionism: A Social Structural Version. Menlo

Park, CA: Benjamin/Cummings.

Stryker, Sheldon. 1968. “Identity Salience and Role Performance: The Relevance of

Symbolic Interaction Theory for Family Research.” Journal of Marriage and

Family 30(4):558-564.

Taylor, Verta and Leila J. Rupp. 2004. “Chicks with Dicks, Men in Dresses.” Journal of

Homosexuality 46(3-4):113-133.

Taylor, Verta and Leila J. Rupp. 2005. “When the Girls Are Men: Negotiating Gender

and Sexual Dynamics in a Study of Drag Queens.” Signs 30(4):2115-2139.

Taylor, Verta and Leila J. Rupp. 2006. “Learning from Drag Queens.” Contexts 5(3):12-

17.

Weston, Kath. [1991] 1997. Families We Choose: Lesbians, Gays, and Kinship. New

York: Columbia University Press.

West, Candace and Don H. Zimmerman. 1987. “Doing gender”. Gender and Society

1(2):125-151.

Way, Christopher D. 2014. "We Are Family! I’ve Got My Drag Sisters With Me: An

Examination of the Relationship between Visual Media and Drag Family

Structure". Senior Thesis, Lake Forest College.

101

APPENDIX A: DRAG HOUSE/FAMILY INTERVIEW GUIDE QUESTION

General Drag Questions

First, I will be asking you about your views of drag and your drag experience.

1. How would you define what being a drag queen means?

a) Would you include faux queens in your definition of a drag queen? (Why or why

not?)

b) Would you include transgender individuals who perform in drag with your

definition of a drag queen? (Why or why not?)

i) What do you think is the conventional meaning of a drag queen?

2. How long have you been doing drag?

3. Is doing drag your full time job?

a) If not, do you have an additional part time or full time work? (If so, what do you

do?)

4. Can you describe how you were introduced to drag? (i.e. how did you start doing

drag?)

5. What does identifying as a drag queen mean to you?

a) What are the unique aspects that makes you a drag queen?

b) How are you similar from other drag queens?

c) How are you different from other drag queens?

6. How would you define your drag style and/or drag persona?

7. How would you describe the dominant look of a drag queen in your community?

a) What kind of drag queens fit this mold and why? (i.e. Younger queens/Older

queens/Experienced queens)

102

8. Has your drag style and/or drag persona changed over time, and if so, how?

Drag house/family questions

In the next few questions, I will be asking you about your drag house and family.

9. How would you define a drag house/family?

a) Who would be part of a drag house? (i.e. mother, daughter, sisters, fathers)

10. What are the responsibilities of a drag mother?

11. What are the responsibilities of a drag daughter?

12. What is your role within your drag house/family?

a) If you are you a drag mother/daughter, how did you come into this role?

i) How did you meet your drag mother/daughter?

ii) Did you approach them or did they approach you about becoming drag

mother/daughter? (Please explain)

iii) Did you take a part of their name? Why or why not?

iv) What responsibilities do you think you have towards your drag

mother/daughter?

v) How important do you feel it is to be a drag mother/daughter and why?

vi) How do you feel that being a drag mother/daughter affects your status in the

drag community?

vii) Has your identity as a drag mother/daughter ever conflicted with other roles or

identities that you embody (for example, being a student, friend, partner,

LGBTQ member, political party member, or racial/ethnic group member,

etc.)?

(1) If so, can you walk me through what happened?

103

viii) Have you ever had a difficult time explaining your identity as a drag

mother/daughter to anyone?

(1) If so, can you walk me through what happened?

ix) When do you disclose to others that you are a drag mother/daughter and/or

that you are a part of a drag family?

x) Has your identity as a drag mother/daughter ever negatively affected your

ability to work at a club or compete in a pageant?

(1) If so, can you walk me through what happened?

b) Has your drag family or house ever had a disagreement with another drag

family/house?

i) If so, can you walk me through what happened?

c) Are there other drag queen families/houses you are close to?

i) If so, can you describe your relationship with that family? (i.e. supportive?

Sisterly? Competitive? Distant?)

ii) Can you describe your house’s relationship with that family? (i.e. supportive?

Sisterly? Competitive? Distant?)

iii) Have there ever been in an instance when one of their house members is

competing against one of your house member or yourself?

(1) If so, can you walk me through what happened?

13. What are the benefits of being part of a drag house/family?

14. Has there ever been someone in your drag family that did not identify as a drag

mother or daughter (i.e. drag king or faux queen)?

a) If so, can you describe their role in the family?

104

b) How best would you describe their identity?

15. Have you ever been part of another drag family?

16. Are you still part of this other drag family?

a) If not, can you walk me through what happened that ended your involvement with

that drag family?

17. Is there anything else that I need to know about your drag house/family, that I did not

ask, but that you think is important for me to know?

Family of Origin (Birth or Adoptive family)

In the next few questions, I will be asking you about your family of origin.

18. How would you describe your relationship with your family of origin?

a) If you currently have contact with your family of origin, how would you describe

their perception of your drag family?

b) If you do not currently have contact with your family of origin, do you feel

comfortable sharing why not?

19. What are the commonalities between your family of origin and your drag family?

20. What are the differences between your family of origin and your drag family?

Is there anything else that I need to know about your family of origin, that I did not ask, but that you think is important for me to know?

105

APPENDIX B: DRAG QUEEN INTERVIEW GUIDE QUESTION

General Drag Questions

First, I will be asking you about your views of drag and your drag experience.

1. How would you define what being a drag queen means?

a) Would you include (Faux/Bio) queens in your definition of a drag queen? (Why or

why not?)

b) Would you include transgender individuals who perform in drag with your

definition of a drag queen? (Why or why not?)

c) What do you think is the conventional meaning of a drag queen?

2. How would you describe the dominant look of a drag queen in the community?

a) What kind of drag queens fit this mold and why? (i.e. Younger queens/Older

queens/Experienced queens)

3. How long have you been doing drag?

4. Is doing drag your full time job?

a) If not, do you have an additional part time or full time work? (If so, what do you

do?)

5. Can you describe how you were introduced to drag? (i.e. how did you start doing

drag?)

a) Did you receive help from any drag queen(s) when you first began?

i) If so, walk me through how that drag queen helped you?

6. How would you define your drag style and/or drag persona?

a) Has your drag style and/or drag persona changed over time, and if so, how?

7. What does identifying as a drag queen mean to you?

106

a) What are the unique aspects that makes you a drag queen?

i) How are you similar and/or different from other drag queens?

b) How do you feel that being a drag queen affects your status in the LGBTQ

community?

c) Has your identity as a drag queen ever conflicted with other roles or identities that

you embody (i.e. being a student, friend, partner, political party member, or

racial/ethnic group member)?

(1) If so, can you walk me through what happened?

d) Have you ever had a difficult time explaining your identity as a drag queen to

anyone?

i) If so, can you walk me through what happened?

e) When and how do you disclose to others that you are a drag queen?

8. How would you define the drag community? (i.e. Friendly, Competitive, Sisterly,

Supportive)

a) Can you describe why some drag queens call other drag queens ‘sisters’?

9. Where have you found yourself making the strongest connection within the drag

community? (e.g. shows, competition, events)

a) Can you walk me through one of these experiences?

10. Is there anything else that I need to know about your drag experience that I did not

ask, but that you think is important for me to know?

Drag house/family questions

In the next few questions, I will be asking you about drag houses/families.

11. How would you define a drag house/family?

107

a) Who would be part of a drag house? (i.e. mother, daughter, sisters, fathers)

12. What are the responsibilities of a drag mother?

13. What are the responsibilities of a drag daughter?

14. Are there drag queen houses/families you are familiar or close to?

a) If so, can you describe your relationship with that family?

i) How did you meet the member(s) of this drag family/houses?

ii) How do you feel that being a drag mother/daughter affects their status in the

drag community?

iii) Has their identity as a drag mother/daughter ever negatively affected their

ability to work at a club or compete in a pageant?

15. What would be the benefits of being part of a drag house/family?

16. Is there anything else that I need to know about drag houses/families that I did not

ask, but that you think is important for me to know?

Family of Origin (Birth or Adoptive family)

In the next few questions, I will be asking you about your family of origin.

17. How would you describe your relationship with your family of origin?

a) If you currently have contact with your family of origin, how would you describe

their perception of you being a drag queen?

b) If you do not currently have contact with your family of origin, do you feel

comfortable sharing why not?

18. Is there anything else that I need to know about your family of origin that I did not

ask, but that you think is important for me to know?

108

APPENDIX C: DEMOGRAPHIC DATA FORM

Pseudonym: ______

Drag Pseudonym (Optional): ______

Age: ______

Racial Identity: ______

Gender Identity: ______

Sexual Orientation: ______

Relationship Status: ______

Occupational Status: ______

Occupation (Optional): ______

Years of work as a drag queen: ______

Role in the family: ______

Drag Family Pseudonym: ______

Best way to contact you (cell/email): ______

109

APPENDIX D: CODE GROUPS

Color Themes Codes Frequency Orange Identity 15 74 Light Drag House/Family 44 207 Green Light Blue Family of Origin 4 34 Pink Community 23 164 Yellow Work/Jobs 5 29 Turquoise Views of Drag 18 110 Purple Definitions 6 35

110

APPENDIX E: INTERVIEW IDENTITY CODES

Frequenc Number of Color Name y Groups Orange Breaking gender norms 10 1 Orange Confusing identities 2 1 Orange Effects of drag identity in society 1 1 Orange Gender identity 8 1 Orange Gender norms 6 1 Orange Heterosexual status 1 1 Orange Hiding drag identity 1 1 Orange Identifying as a Faux/Bio Queen 7 1 Orange Labels 4 1 Orange Maintaining gender stereotypes 1 1 Orange Status 2 1 Orange Telling others about drag identity 10 1 Orange Their drag persona/aesthetic 9 1 Orange Viewing themselves as a freedom fighter 3 1 Yellow Drag identity effecting work/job 7 2

111

APPENDIX F: INTERVIEW DRAG HOUSE/FAMILY CODES

Number of Color Name Frequency Groups Light Aspects of drag houses 16 1 Green Light Benefits of drag houses 2 1 Green Light Clearly stating not a drag family 3 1 Green Light Conflict with other drag house 3 1 Green Light Difference between drag house and family 1 1 Green of origin Light Don't Understand drag houses 1 1 Green Light Drag dad 1 1 Green Light Drag daughters 3 1 Green Light Drag daughters/sons represent drag 7 1 Green mother Light Drag daughters/dons teach drag mother 4 1 Green Light Drag house becomes family 9 1 Green Light Drag house defined 7 2 Green Light Drag house identity effecting jobs/work 1 1 Green Light Drag house introduction 2 1 Green Light Drag house like family 2 1 Green Light Drag house name has clout 5 1 Green Light Drag house spending time together 5 1 Green Light Drag houses as exclusive 2 1 Green Light Drag houses as support group 21 1 Green Light Drag house helps with Networking 3 1 Green

112

Light Drag sons 12 1 Green Light Drag style demonstrates cohesion 1 1 Green Light Effects of drag house identity in 1 2 Green community Light Everyone can do something (Drag 4 1 Green Houses) Light Explaining drag house identity to others 3 1 Green Light Exposed to more people (Drag House) 4 1 Green Light Family aspect of drag houses 10 1 Green Light Help empower drag queens (Daughters) 1 1 Green Light How they met (Drag House) 3 1 Green Light Importance of drag mother identity 1 1 Green Light Knowing a drag house 2 1 Green Light Last name (Drag House) 3 1 Green Light Living together (Drag House) 5 1 Green Light Motherly Figure (reference to family of 5 1 Green origin terms) Light Part of drag family (Not drag house) 8 1 Green Light Relationship between drag house and 5 1 Green family of origin Light Relationship with another drag house 8 1 Green Light Responsibilities of drag daughter(s) 4 1 Green Light Responsibilities of drag mother 12 1 Green Light Responsibilities of drag son 5 1 Green Light Seeing no benefits in drag houses 1 1 Green Light Similar to their parent (Drag House) 2 1 Green Light Unofficial member of drag house/family 5 1 113

Green Light Who is part of a Drag house 4 1 Green

114

APPENDIX G: INTERVIEW FAMILY OF ORIGIN CODES

Number of Color Name Frequency Groups Light Blue Family of Origin 14 1 Light Blue Journey to acceptance (Family of Origin) 5 1 Light Blue Problems with family of origin 12 1 Light Blue Spouse/child 3 1

115

APPENDIX H: INTERVIEW COMMUNITY CODES

Number of Color Name Frequency Groups Pink Building community 14 1 Creating space for alternative LGBT+ Pink 7 1 people Pink Bias within the LGBTQ+ community 5 1 Turquoise Drag as a movement 4 3 Pink Drag community as competitive 8 1 Pink Drag effecting dating life 3 1 Pink Drag queens build community 16 1 Pink Drag queens not wanting help 1 1 Light Effects of drag house identity in 1 2 Green community Pink Effects of drag identity in community 4 1 Pink Forefront of LGBTQ+ community 3 1 Gender effecting drag identity/status in Pink 9 1 community Pink Helping/learning from each other 14 1 Pink Lack of belonging within community 5 1 Pink Learning from other drag queens 5 1 Pink LGBTQ+ community 2 1 Pink Likes helping others 18 1 Pink Opportunity to teach others about drag 8 1 Pink Problems staying connected (once in drag) 5 1 Providing "motherly" love to community Pink 4 1 members Pink Safe space/hold space 3 1 Pink Staying connected 4 1 Pink Support Group 21 1

116

APPENDIX I: INTERVIEW WORK/JOB CODES

Number of Color Name Frequency Groups Yellow Commitment to drag as work/job 8 1 Yellow Drag identity effecting work/job 7 2 Yellow Fear of drag becoming a "job" 1 1 Yellow Full-time job/part-time job 12 1 Yellow Work compromising drag 1 1

117

APPENDIX J: INTERVIEW VIEWS OF DRAG CODES

Number of Color Name Frequency Groups Participant referenced Butler’s view of Turquoise 3 1 drag Turquoise Difference between drag styles 5 1 Turquoise Different drag styles/looks (spectrum) 7 1 Turquoise Drag as a character identity 3 2 Turquoise Drag as a movement 4 3 Turquoise Drag as a superhero 2 2 Turquoise Drag as an escape 5 2 Turquoise Drag as creativity 6 2 Turquoise Drag as empowerment 4 2 Turquoise Drag as expression 13 2 Drag to erase stigma/challenge Turquoise 19 2 stereotypes Turquoise Looking intimidating 1 1 Turquoise Mainstream drag style/look 7 1 Turquoise Others views of drag 8 1 Turquoise Performance 5 1 Turquoise Rebels 1 1 Turquoise Using bodies to disrupt norms 6 2 Turquoise View of drag 11 1

118

APPENDIX K: INTERVIEW DEFINITION CODES

Number of Color Name Frequency Groups Purple Club kids 5 1 Purple Defining drag 12 1 Purple Defining Faux/Bio Queens 5 1 Purple Drag "sisters" 5 1 Light Drag house defined 7 2 Green Purple Transgender drag queens 1 1

119