Journal of Gender Studies

ISSN: 0958-9236 (Print) 1465-3869 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjgs20

An exploration of gender from the perspective of

cisgender male drag queens

Douglas Knutson, Mar Chung, Julie M. Koch, Anthony Lee & Jenilee Sneed

To cite this article: Douglas Knutson, Mar Chung, Julie M. Koch, Anthony Lee & Jenilee Sneed
(2019): An exploration of gender from the perspective of cisgender male drag queens, Journal of
Gender Studies, DOI: 10.1080/09589236.2019.1668260

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2019.1668260

Published online: 19 Sep 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 69

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cjgs20
JOURNAL OF GENDER STUDIES
https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2019.1668260

An exploration of gender from the perspective of cisgender male

drag queens
a
Douglas Knutson , Mar Chunga, Julie M. Kochb, Anthony Leeb and Jenilee Sneedc
a
Department of Psychology, Southern Illinois University Carbondale, Carbondale, IL, USA; bSchool of Community
Health Sciences, Counseling and Counseling Psychology, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, USA;
c
Counseling Services, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Scholars who investigate drag performance tend to focus on associations Received 8 February 2019
between female impersonation and gender theories or social gender Accepted 10 September 2019
norms. Current conceptualizations of drag and gender identities draw on KEYWORDS
qualitative studies that either narrowly focus on gender through theoretical Drag queen; LGBT; gender
lenses or that comment on gender with secondary analyses. We sought to identity; performance
explore multiple psychological and sociocultural dimensions of identity and
drag performance using a semi-structured interview protocol. Our partici-
pants were 12 gay cisgender male drag queens. We employed Consensual
Qualitative Research method to analyse the resulting transcripts and we
identified the following four domains pertinent to participants’ perspec-
tives: making sense of gender, gender expectations, female impersonation,
and transition through drag. Within these domains, we identified nine
categories. In general, participants reported that their participation in the
study was the first time they had deeply considered the gendered implica-
tions of drag performance and/or their own gender identity. We discuss
implications for gender theory and offer suggestions for future research.

Introduction
Scholars continue to focus on the differences between sex and gender and on the within group
variance among individuals with diverse gender identities (Brammer & Ginicola, 2017; Fassinger &
Arseneau, 2007). Researchers featured in foundational texts have argued that transgender indivi-
duals fit within sexual orientation minority, or lesbian, gay and bisexual communities (LGB), based
on an established, conflated understanding of sex and gender (Bailey, 2003; Fassinger & Arseneau,
2007). Throughout this article we use transgender as an umbrella term that includes non-binary and
gender queer individuals or others who do not identify as cisgender (Moe, Bower, & Clark, 2017).
Cisgender refers to individuals whose gender identity is congruent with the sex they were assigned
at birth (Brammer & Ginicola, 2017).
Sexual orientation and gender identity are distinguished from one another in landmark
documents such as the American Psychological Association (APA) (2015) guidelines on therapy
with transgender and gender non-conforming individuals. Still, scholars debate the meaning of
drag for sex and gender, both on a societal level and within each individual (Marinucci, 2016).
Given that drag performance parodies gender identity (Butler, 2006) and is performed primarily
by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) individuals (Newton, 1979), drag queens are
sometimes considered gender diverse, gender fluid, or transgender due to the nature or style of

CONTACT Douglas Knutson [email protected] Department of Psychology, Southern Illinois University

Carbondale, 1125 Lincoln Drive, Carbondale, IL 62901, USA
© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 D. KNUTSON ET AL.

their performance (Brammer & Ginicola, 2017). Drag queens may also be conceptualized as
existing somewhere between transgender, gay and cisgender communities (Bailey, 2003; Levitt
et al., 2017).
This impulse, to categorize drag performers as gender minorities, is congruent with past and
current scholarship (Bailey, 2003; Egner & Maloney, 2016; Greaf, 2016). Yet, such approaches do not
take into account the unique intersections (Crenshaw, 1993) produced when individual commu-
nities, such as gay men, perform in drag. In other words, drag may be experienced or understood
differently by gay men than it is by lesbian women, transgender women, and so on. Understanding
these unique dynamics requires a psychological, phenomenological approach that analyzes ques-
tions about gender identity among sexual minority sub-populations.

Brief history of drag research

One of the early, seminal works in the literature on drag queens was an ethnography produced by
Newton (1979). In her text, Newton (1979) notes that drag, or female impersonation, represents
a couple of symbolic statements. One of these statements is that drag performance is external to
the performer, a wilful manipulation of sex-role behaviours. This view is somewhat reflected in the
writings of Butler (2006), who framed drag as an imitation with no referent or as a parody of an
ideal that is not grounded in actual, lived experience. Viewed through this lens, the gay or bisexual
male drag performer is composed of the identity he projects on the outside and the identity he
maintains on the inside (Newton, 1979).
This person centred distinction becomes obscured when authors discuss what drag is intended
to do, or how it alters theories, communities, and cultures (Egner & Maloney, 2016; Rupp, Taylor, &
Shapiro, 2010). For example, Rupp and Taylor (2003) analysed the implications of drag for feminist
theory and they concluded that, though drag performance risks marginalizing women, drag may
also blur the gender binary in a way that allows society to move beyond rigid gender categories.
This focus on the broader, gender focused implications of drag performance is not bad, but it is
limited as it continues to surface in contemporary literature(Egner & Maloney, 2016; Greaf, 2016).

What drag means

Focusing on the way drag is received and interpreted by audiences, Hankins (2015) suggests that
drag performance is the combination of two components: the drag queen’s intention and a given
audience member’s read of the performance within their social context. Scholars generally focus on
the second of these two components, the audience reaction or the ways that society and gender
theory bend to accommodate drag performance (e.g., Greaf, 2016; Rupp & Taylor, 2003).
As of yet, scholarship investigating what drag means for cisgender, gay and bisexual drag queens is
limited and mixed (see Knutson & Koch, 2018). Early qualitative work, such as Newton’s (1979)
ethnography and Bailey’s (2003) collection of studies suggest ways that drag queen identities may
be constructed, but they are somewhat contradictory and are limited by the time period in which they
were produced. In the introduction to the second edition of her book, Newton (1979) suggests that
future researchers may revisit the concepts presented in her text as LGBT culture continues to shift
and change over time. Though researchers have continued to produce the sorts of field work that
Newton (1979) called for, they have not focused on the identities and intentions of individual
performers (Levitt et al., 2017.)In other words, the implications for gender theories and societal
norms are still the primary focus, rather than the subjective experiences of drag performers.

Present study
Given the limitations of existing drag and gender research, namely that current studies involve the
application of a gender theory lens, we sought to use a phenomenological, inductive methodology
 JOURNAL OF GENDER STUDIES 3

that has been primarily used within psychology research (Hill, 2015). We employed this approach in
an effort to revisit and extend early research and theory about gay and bisexual female imperso-
nators (e.g., Bailey, 2003; Newton, 1979). By focusing specifically on the internal experiences and
psychological phenomena of a homogenous sample of drag performers, we sought to explore the
role gender plays in their world using a constructivist, post-positivist epistemology (Hill, 2015). The
questions that guided this study were: How do cisgender male drag queens talk about gender in
general? How do drag queens discuss their own gender, given that they regularly participate in
communities in which gender may be salient?

Method
In order to focus on the psychological and internal experiences of our participants, we employed
Consensual Qualitative Research (CQR) methodology (Hill, 2015). Scholars in the psychological
sciences have used CQR extensively in qualitative research (Ponterotto, 2010).

Participants
We recruited the 12 participants for this study from a large city in the south-central United States.
The sample size of 12 was acceptable because of the homogeneity of the sample (e.g., gender,
sexual orientation, location) that was collected (Hill, 2012). Only participants who identified as
cisgender men, gay or bisexual, and as drag queens were included in this study. Of the sample, six
participants were White/Caucasian, three were Native American, one identified as Black, one as
Latino, and one as biracial (White and Latino). Their ages ranged from 22 to 54, M = 34. The range
of time doing drag performance spanned from 2 to 33 years, M = 13. Most of the participants
performed once per week and none considered drag a primary source of income.

Researchers
Based on Hill and colleague’s Consensual Qualitative Research (CQR) process, the initial research
team consisted of four researchers and one internal auditor. The research team sought equitable
contribution from each member, through dialogue throughout the research process (Hill, 2015). Of
the 12 transcripts, three team members coded the initial three transcripts, and an alternate group
of three team members coded the remaining nine. The researchers maintained groups of three to
support CQR-required consensus negotiations (Hill, 2012).
In order to facilitate positionality, Hill (2012) suggests that researchers identify any identities that
may impact data analysis. The primary investigator identified as a White, cisgender, gay male,
graduate student. Of the three research team members: one identified as White, cisgender, bisexual
woman; another identified as a White, cisgender, gay man; and the third identified as a Black,
cisgender, heterosexual man. All of the core research team members were graduate students.
Lastly, the auditor was a White, cisgender, queer woman, faculty member. The primary investigator
and the auditor had experience with CQR. The other three research members familiarized them-
selves with CQR process through Hill et al. (2005), Hill, Thompson, and Williams (1997), and related
passages in Hill’s (2012) book on CQR methodology.
In adherence to qualitative best practices, the research team practiced reflexivity, before the
study and during coding (Hill et al., 2005; Yeh & Inman, 2007). Our reflexivity included sharing our
biases and expectations regarding the study of drag, as well as possible biases stemming from our
various social identities. None of the research members performed drag, but the majority knew
drag queens personally. Thus, we had a shared outsider perspective of drag as non-performers, and
most had a possible positive bias given our personal and favourable connections to drag queens.
Four of the five also identified as sexual minorities, whereas one member identified as hetero-
sexual, another possible outside perspective.
4 D. KNUTSON ET AL.

In general, the members shared affirmative perspectives of drag, viewing it as fun and exciting.
Members also reported feeling positive emotions towards drag performers. This led to positive
expectations regarding the participants’ reports of drag, namely that participants might report drag
as a way to participate in a meaningful and beautiful art form. With awareness of this positive bias
as a possible limitation, the researchers attempted to minimize this bias during data analysis.

Procedure
Recruitment
We recruited drag performers through Facebook in a large city in the south-central US by posting
and sending advertisements directly to prospective participants. Participants were offered the
option to be entered in a drawing to win handcrafted earrings created by a drag jeweller. To
participate, those interested contacted the primary investigator and then scheduled an hour-long
semi-structured interview, conducted in-person.

Interview protocol
To ensure confidentiality and a quiet space, researchers interviewed
participants in homes. The interviews were about 45 to 50 minutes in length, appropriate for
a 13-question interview script (Hill, 2012). At the start of the interview, participants completed an
IRB-approved informed consent form, and were given time to ask any related questions.
Participants then filled out the demographic questionnaire that included questions about gender
identity, ethnicity, race, and sexual orientation. After this questionnaire, the researcher began audio
recording and shared the semi-structured interview process. The interview started with rapport-
building questions, such as general questions about drag participation. Questions then progressed
from broad to specific about their drag performance and identity (Hill, 2012). With the semi-
structured format, questions were supplemented by probing questions to facilitate further explora-
tion of dimensions of participant experience (Hill et al., 2005). Interview questions included: ‘Please
describe what it was like for you the first time you performed in drag.’ and ‘What does gender
mean to you?’ After the interview was completed, team members transferred all confidential
materials in a double-locked transport container that was HIPAA-compliant.

Transcription
The primary investigator transcribed the audio files. The transcripts were then cross-checked by
another team member for accuracy. Pseudonyms were given for each participant, and transcripts
did not include any identifying information. Secure servers were used to securely store the
transcripts.

Data analysis
We selected CQR (Hill, 2015) as our method for research with the drag population due to the
strength of in-depth and complex data and the lack of research thus far on drag populations. The
CQR process includes development of broad domains through methods of consensus, thereby
including various perspectives (Hill, 2015). Several integrity checks we included in our study:
consensus coding, consistent auditor feedback, and core idea development. During domain and
category development, Hill (2012) encourages this collaborative process to prevent researcher
assumptions and ideas prior to the study from influencing the content. Researchers coded each
transcript separately and then worked to consensus to create a domain list. With new data from
following transcripts, domain names and definitions were further formulated. Within domains, we
identified categories of similar information.
From Hill’s (2012) process for cross-analysis, researchers labelled categories within each domain
and then counted the number of cases in which each category appeared. If the category was in 3–6
 JOURNAL OF GENDER STUDIES 5

Table 1. Domain frequency.

Category Domain Frequency
Making Sense of Gender Gender Identity General
Biological Sex Variant
Male Self-Identity General
Gender Expectations Family Construction Variant
Social Construction Typical
Personal Experience Typical
Female Impersonation Persona General
Level of Commitment Variant
Context-Based Behaviour Typical
Transition Through Drag Typical

cases, it was deemed variant; 7–11 cases, typical; and if a category showed up in all 12 cases, it was
labelled general (Table 1). The auditor supported bias reduction through consistent feedback in the
process. She reviewed the sorting process, and checked that data were sorted accurately (based on
the core ideas) into the categories.

Results
While conducting interviews, we found that our participants seemed largely unprepared to talk
directly and candidly about gender and/or their own gender identity development. Therefore,
while it is common practice to remove verbal fillers (e.g., um, uh, you know) from quotes presented
in qualitative manuscripts (Hill, 2015), we have retained these fillers in order to illustrate the ways
our participants took time to define and to verbally process concepts surrounding gender.
Our analysis resulted in four primary domains, making sense of gender, gender expectations,
female impersonation, and transition through drag, as well as nine categories (Table 1). Below, we
descriptively define each domain and category and we provide quotes to illustrate our findings.
Furthermore, in order to personalize these quotes and to de-identify our data, we randomly
assigned a pseudonym to each participant. In tandem with pseudonyms, we use male pronouns
(e.g., he, him, his) to reflect our participants’ self-reported identities as men.

Making sense of gender

Our first domain, making sense of gender, captures our participants’ attempts to reconcile their drag
performance with existing expectations surrounding masculinity and their own male identities. Our
interview questions about gender identity surfaced a three-way fracture among how the perfor-
mers commented on the origins of gender identity, their reflections on gender identity in general,
and their characterization of their own gender identity. These considerations were not always
congruent, but collectively, these data indicated that participants tend to consider gender as
a consistent and static identity that one possesses.

Gender identity
When commenting on gender identity as a concept, participants tended to make observations
about the gender expressions of others. This is to say that they externalized the concept of gender
identity and discussed it as an abstract concept that was characteristic of or exemplified in other
people. Our participants suggested that gender arises from one’s felt sense and that it may be part
of one’s ‘soul.’ They stated that each individual defines their own gender identity. These deep and
descriptive explorations of gender expression generally surfaced when participants were asked to
define gender.
For example, Phil stated that gender identity is ‘Who you are.’ Shelton further suggested, ‘Um,
well everyone’s different in their own little way so, I, you know, we all know that with the support
6 D. KNUTSON ET AL.

in our community, everyone is being able to open up and choose actually who they really want to
be, so it’s not our decision or it’s not our opinion of who they are. It’s their opinion.’ Summing up
the issue of gender identity, Bart stated clearly, ‘I think it’s a part of your soul.’

Biological sex
Participants also discussed the role of biological sex in gender identity. In some cases, they
suggested that gender arises from one’s genetics, neurobiological and/or anatomical factors.
These responses also resulted when participants were asked to define gender. Whereas the gender
identity domain focused more on social factors related to gender identity, the biological sex domain
formed around a set of responses that suggested nature plays a role in gender identity as well.
Participants were intentional about pointing out that gender identity is not a choice.
Tom slowly offered before trailing off into thought, ‘I mean, you know, males are born that
identify as females. A lot of people will go, “Well that’s nonsense! You haven’t met the right girl.”
Well we all know better now . . . ’ Likewise, Mike stated, ‘I mean, it’s definitely something you’re
born with. I have transgender people in my family. Um, and that’s why I don’t think. I can’t believe
I’ve never thought of this question.’ Tim also stated, ‘I think it’s, you know, it is how you are born,
um, genitalia-wise, you know, maybe not mental state.’

Male self-identity
When participants did focus on themselves, they repeatedly asserted that drag performance has no
impact on their gender identity. They affirmed that their gender identity is unrelated to drag
performance, their drag persona, or to female impersonation in general. What’s more, they
regularly expressed a value for their male anatomy.
For example, Stan stated, ‘I love shoes and hair and makeup and fabric and all that and I have it
in my room right now, but I don’t want to wear that twenty-four-seven.’ George also offered, ‘I
don’t understand why I would ever want to transform to another gender permanently because I’m
not that. I’m far more the drag queen side than the, uh, I don’t know, the transgender side.’ Phil
stated, ‘I’ve dressed in girl’s clothing whenever I was a little kid with my sister . . . I mean, it was fun,
but I always knew that I was a boy.’ He later added with a laugh, ‘I’ve never really, uh, seen signs or
felt signs of, you know, wanting to be a girl. I was just really, really gay.’

Gender expectations
Aside from their own perspectives on gender identity, our participants expressed an awareness of
assumptions, thoughts, and beliefs held by broader society and by groups of people that exist
within and are impacted by societal values (e.g., family, friends, gay identified people, etc.). The
participants attributed these expectations to their family members and to society in general. They
also shared interpersonal encounters that illustrated ways that societal biases regarding gender
may have had an impact on the participants’ lives.

Family construction
The first subdomain within the gender expectations category captures the ways that gender
expression was handled by our participants’ families. On the one hand, participants outlined that
family members possessed assumptions about gender expression and even may have exerted
pressure on the participants to conform to those values. On the other hand, some participants
noted that their families were open to the gender-diverse presentations of the participants and
were affirming of traditionally feminine behaviours.
Discussing pressure to conform to family gender norms, Tim suggested, ‘I’ll use women’s
clothing as an example. You know, like, maybe you could get away with wearing women’s jeans,
but you’re just going to have to like, put like a men’s shirt on. You know, kind of give them
[parents] some sort of balance . . . ’ Tim went on to say, ‘You know, I don’t carry a purse in front of
 JOURNAL OF GENDER STUDIES 7

them, um, don’t essentially dress as female, you know.’ These statements illustrated a continued
need to hide aspects of his drag performance while he lived in his family’s home. Similarly, Stan
discussed messages during his childhood that he got from his father who was disappointed that
Stan was not interested in the same trucks, science, and chemistry sets as his brothers. Stan said,
‘Everything was negative, you know. I was told, “Stand up straight. Don’t do this. Don’t do that. Act
this way. Do that.”’
Still, Stan’s experiences were not all negative. Rather, his grandparents tended to support Stan’s
adolescent interest in toys that were considered, by Stan’s father, to be for girls. Stan recalled, ‘I
didn’t ask for the Donny Osmond doll. It just blew my mind that my grandmother got it for me, but
my grandparents were unusual like that. I didn’t ask for the things the boys wanted . . . ’ Similarly,
Tom recounted his parents’ affirming behaviours when he was a child. He said, ‘I had parents that,
when I look back and I think, “Wow.” They never questioned it. I wanted dolls for Christmas or
birthdays . . . My mom made me little tutus and I danced around and there was never a question.’
Tom went on to express how grateful he was to have been raised in an open and affirming
environment.

Social construction
Within this category, participants discussed expectations about gender expression that they perceive
to be held by society in general. They expressed ways that social expectations may be either restrictive
or liberating. Much like the family construction domain, stories covered both positive and negative
dynamics that impact work as a drag queen within the US social and political climate.
At times, participants mirrored the biases held by society. While discussing his attraction to
cisgender men, George stated, ‘I like men. Like, I like men to be men.’ He went on to state, ‘I’ve
always thought that, my whole gay career, that masculine men were far more attractive, and more
appealing than feminine men.’ Greg discussed a process of acclimating to the LGBT community. He
said, ‘And then I came to a gay bar the first time and I saw boys wearing makeup . . . and I was like,
“Who the hell are these people?” . . . but then when I started getting involved in the gay community
and I started doing drag and I started getting around these people and these people weren’t just
freaks, they were my friends.’
Participants also highlighted the impact that their geographic location could have on the way
society treats them. Greg suggested, ‘It just depends on where you are in society and what location
you are in the country of what’s accepted or what’s not. We’re right here in the Bible Belt so things
would be different for us than it’s going to be somewhere else.’ The Bible Belt climate he described
was more restrictive, and cultivated a judgemental attitude towards gender variance. Phil also said,
‘I think that growing up in a very rednecky kind of town, you hear, “Get up, you’re a boy, you can
handle this, you can do this, you can take that, you’re a guy . . . ”’
Still, our participants offered examples of ways that society and/or leadership have become
more open to gender diversity. Phil stated, ‘An example is Obama . . . with the toys at
Christmastime, you know . . . all the trucks went to the boys. Well, he was like, “No, girls like to
play with trucks.”’ Tom noted, ‘I come from Europe where things are just so far more progressed
than this [current location]. Um, and it’s not an issue.’

Personal experience
The last category within the gender expectations domain includes specific encounters or vignettes that
participants shared. In these stories, participants expressed an awareness that other people may
assume that they wish to be women or that they are more feminine because of their participation in
drag. Participants rejected these misperceptions and expressed frustration about them especially when
these misperceptions impacted their social lives. Personal experiences reached into both family and
broader social relationships. Mike shared, ‘I’ve had this discussion with my mother when I first, when
she first found out [about drag performance]. She was like, “Oh my god, do you want to be a girl?” I’m
like, “No.”’ Stuart also said, ‘I always tell people, whenever I tell them about me being a female
8 D. KNUTSON ET AL.

impersonator, “Not all drag queens want to be women, some of them, you know” and some drag
queens even date women. There are straight men who do drag.’
Bob further illustrated this phenomenon when he said, ‘I think a lot of people still don’t
understand the given definitions between a drag queen, a cross-dresser, and transgender.
I really think that they think that when I leave here [home] in makeup and a dress, that
I probably go home, take a shower, get out of it, go to bed, and then wake up the next day
and put it all right back on.’ Henry stated the dynamic clearly, saying, ‘I think that people are
always going to have an opinion and I think that, you know, some people might mix the word
gender with drag queen.’

Female impersonation
In this domain, participants dug into their actual drag personas and into what it is like to be a drag
queen. While previous domains included information about their general, daily experiences with
family, friends, and society, the female impersonation category contains information about their
drag personae and about the ways that their personae or the characters they created function
within a gender-focused world.

Personae
Our participants reported developing a stage character that exhibited marked differences in
behaviour and interpersonal conduct from the way the performer acts outside of drag. They
repeatedly highlighted the intentional ways they developed and maintained this character as
a sort of brand, franchise, or projected image. Our participants discussed ways that this alter
ego, of sorts, allowed them to experiment with being more outgoing or more forward then they
would be while out of character. For example, Greg stated, ‘When I’m not in drag, I’m very
educated, I’m very goal-oriented, I’m very easy to talk to . . . what you see is kind of what you
get. When I’m in drag, I’m over the top, I’m very sexual, I’m very flamboyant.’ He went on to say
later, ‘I think drag is about performance and a challenge to try to mask yourself as female.’
Reflecting on the shift between his daily life and his character, Tim stated, ‘I think there’s things
that you can’t change like your intelligence . . . your ability to communicate doesn’t change.’ Then
moving to dimensions of the person that may differ between roles, he stated, ‘I would say that
people’s personalities change a lot. I know mine has before.’ He went on to discuss ways that his
mood before performing may impact his performance, may be bracketed until he gets home again,
or may be improved by a successful night.
George went into some detail about his stage persona, ‘I feel like the character I play, [drag
name omitted], is older than I am and I mean, she’s a woman, but it’s kind of fun because I’m
creating . . . another persona. It’s not just a woman persona.’ Later, he stated, ‘It’s the mask I’m
putting on. You know, they talk about painting your face? You’re creating a whole new face and
you’re putting on an outfit, you’re putting on a body. You’re putting on a lot, putting in a lot of
energy to be someone that you’ve created . . . ’

Level of commitment
Our participants also reported either an awareness of performers who undergo body modifications
or had obtained body modifications themselves (e.g., lip augmentation, face fillers, hip enhance-
ment, etc.) in order to enhance the illusion of femininity for drag performance. They also talked
about making sacrifices, physically and vocationally, in order to participate in drag performance.
During the interviews, our participants stated that drag is physically demanding, some of the
costumes and binding are painful, and that drag sometimes takes them away from their day jobs in
a way that makes maintaining a livelihood outside of drag difficult.
Regarding body modification, Bart stated, ‘I mean, you have those drag queens that I know of
that take hormones and sh*t and they don’t want to be female. They just want a little extra curve
 JOURNAL OF GENDER STUDIES 9

because their whole life is about drag.’ George spoke to other physical changes, ‘I’ve said to myself,
“Oh, I’ve got something big coming up and I want to lose weight for it . . . ” So I’m altering myself at
that point for a part.’
Shelton addressed other physical demands, clarifying what he meant when he said that drag is
painful, ‘Well not bad physical pain, just like you’re corseted up so of course it’s hard to breathe
sometimes or your toes hurt from wearing heels, your face is sore from the shaving . . . ’ Greg offered
insight into ways that drag may impact one’s full-time vocation when he said, ‘I think that my real
career was starting to be overshadowed by the fact that I had this little part-time job as [drag name
omitted] that was growing and big and just getting bigger and bigger and bigger and I was putting
more focus and emphasis on drag than I was on my career and my career was suffering.’

Context-based behaviour
Our participants suggested that their mimicry of femininity had a contextual dimension in that it
changed based on the setting they were in and on their awareness of that setting. They stated that
they could manipulate their feminine behaviour for comedic effect or to fulfil their performance
goals. They said that, at times, they might forget they were in drag and might start acting
masculine by accident. Stan stated clearly, ‘There are things I do as [drag name omitted] that
I don’t appreciate doing as [boy name].’
Elaborating on his use of femininity to meet performance or comedic goals, Stuart said, ‘I want
people to be confused. I like that shock value.’ Stuart went on to talk about how impacted he was
the first time he saw drag: ‘When I started doing drag, it took me back to that moment and
I wanted the audience to have the same feeling of like mind blowing, “There’s no way that’s
a man,” you know?’ Henry talked about performing in different contexts and drew on his past as
a dancer. He stated, ‘It’s all about the different jobs, I guess you could say because as the male, I’m
dancing. I’m not singing, I’m just dancing.’ In contrast, he said of drag performance, ‘I’m lip-syncing.
I’m trying to move like a woman and trying to, uh, walk and all of that.’

Transition through drag

In our final domain, our participants talked about other drag queens and not about themselves.
Though none of our performers identified as transgender, they shared stories and reflections
regarding their own personal interactions with gender diverse audience members, friends, and co-
performers. Within this domain, participants noted that transgender drag performers may utilize
drag to express their gender identity safely. As they recounted interactions with transgender
audience members and fellow performers, they affirmed the identity and personhood of these
individuals. Through the process of talking about transgender people, our participants also shared
that they did not know much about transition or of the experiences of transgender people.
Stuart offered, ‘One of my friends is starting to transition and she was telling me that whenever
she first started doing drag, she used to hate taking off her drag. Like, she used to dread taking off
her makeup and taking off her wigs and stuff because she loved that feeling of being a woman . . . ’
Mike suggested that drag may provide an avenue for self-discovery when he said, ‘Well, for some
[drag queens], I mean, that’s self-discovery . . . or maybe that [drag] is how they discovered
themselves, made themselves comfortable or something.’ Bob guessed that drag operates as
a protective factor for some transgender people who, in drag, may not ‘be ridiculed as badly for
it [dressing as a woman]’ and may be ‘free to truly be who you are . . . ’
Our participants expressed awareness that their assessments of the experiences of transgender
drag queens were pure conjecture. Another of our participants talked about the affirmation he
feels when he is able to use his celebrity status as a drag queen to help gender diverse people feel
more comfortable in the audience at his shows.
10 D. KNUTSON ET AL.

Discussion
In this study, we utilized an inductive, phenomenological research method in order to explore perceptions
of gender and identity among drag queens. We sought to answer the questions: How do cisgender male
drag queens talk about gender in general? How do drag queens discuss their own gender, given that they
regularly participate in communities in which gender may be salient? Some of our findings are similar to
results presented elsewhere (Levitt et al., 2017). However, other results further clarify individual and
internal psychological processes shared among gay, cisgender male, drag queens.

Multiple marginalization and identity management

Throughout each interview, our participants consistently expressed that they identify as men. In
this way, our participants seemed to contradict suggestions that drag performance, as a whole,
represents an alternate gender or genders (Rupp et al., 2010) or that drag queens are a missing link
between gay men and transgender individuals (Bailey, 2003). Whether or not audiences perceive
drag queens to be gender diverse is another question altogether, but our participants were clear
that they have constructed a character for performance and that, either for comedy or when they
forget their surroundings, they let the character slip and their ‘maleness’ shows through. This
finding seems to support the idea that drag queens maintain both an internal identity and an
external performative expression (Newton, 1979).
However, the ways that our participants talked about gender across content areas was inter-
esting. It is possible that participants experienced the threat of identity misclassification or a fear
that they would be mischaracterized based on stereotypes and would experience a loss of social
capital (see Becker, 1963)., Our participants identified themselves with their privileged identities
(e.g., as male or as cisgender men), while also expressing support for transgender performers and
individuals. Though stereotype threat was addressed by Newton (1979) and others, this empathy
for transgender performers may be a new development that departs from some of the earlier
divisions in the drag community (e.g., between street and stage performers).
What is clear is that the psychological experiences of gay, cisgender male drag queens exist at
the intersection of a multitude of factors that include sex, gender, family and societal expectations,
performance demands, and vocational dynamics. We are not the first to highlight the impact that
drag has on family relationships (see Bailey, 2003) or how drag queens are treated in different
spaces (see Newton, 1979), but our results provide a broader and more integrated view of ways
that multiple factors (e.g., family, friends, performance spaces, social interactions) may interact or
intersect in the lives of gay and bisexual drag queens. According our participants, different spaces,
contexts, relationships, and settings carried with them differing expectations, limitations, and
demands. For example, in some spaces, our participants were treated as if they are gender diverse
and they shared discrimination they had experienced based on their perceived gender. They told
stories about how their gender presentation was a source of celebrity status in a bar, but that it
simultaneously reduced their dating options.
They also suggested that their families and society in general may conflate gender identity and
sexual orientation and may reject them based on the multiple identities they are assigned.
Throughout the interviews we conducted, our participants responded to questions about gender
with reflections on their coming out process as gay men, indicating that their identities had been
shaped by a diversity of factors and difficulties. As Newton (1979) suggested, for our sample, being
gay and coming out appeared to be first step towards participating in drag performance.

Discussing gender
A core component of our study was the direct way in which we talked about and asked that our
participants discuss their gender identities. Given the existing research about gender identity
 JOURNAL OF GENDER STUDIES 11

and drag, it would not be unreasonable to assume that our participants would be prepared to
talk about gender. On the contrary, our participants reported thinking about their gender
identities very little or even not at all. When participants were asked to discuss gender identity
directly, they generally externalized the construct and shared their thoughts about gender
identity based on what they have observed in others. They suggested that gender diverse
people may participate in drag because it provides them a safe place to explore a gender
expression that is more congruent with their identity, while maintaining that drag did not serve
this purpose for them. This is consistent with scholarship highlighting the performative aspects
of gender that are detached from any actual internal gender identity or external gender referent
(Butler, 2006; Newton, 1979).
Although participants did not talk about gender in abstract ways or in terms of discrete
definitions, they did talk about gendered dynamics, expectations, and environments. These experi-
ences did not register in the overt, self-reflective content that participants communicated, but they
did appear to be operating in the background. This may mean that drag relates less to identity and
more to the environment in which gay, cisgender male drag queens find themselves. As Marinucci
(2016) suggested, some drag performers only express theatrical and/or feminine behaviours in drag
settings and their gender expressions outside of drag are congruent with their gender identities to
the point of appearing mundane. Of course, such a pure, discrete dichotomy or separation
between gender and environment or identity and situational factors is likely too extreme (Bailey,
2003). All cisgender men probably ponder their gender identities in some way and that both
nature and nurture play important roles in the development of gender (Keener & Strough, 2017),
drag environments not excluded.
Nevertheless, an important separation between identity and performance environment may
exist for gay, cisgender male drag queens. Some scholars have tied gender expression to gender
identity by suggesting that gender expression is the external presentation of a person’s internal
gender identity (Ginicola, Smith, & Filmore, 2017). In regards to drag, though, these may be
separate constructs. Given that our participants exhibit more feminine behaviours that are not
directly related to their gender identities, the term gender performance may constitute a more
accurate way to refer to the phenomenon that occurs when a person does drag, or performs
a gender that is inconsistent with their internal gender identity (see Butler, 2006).
When asked about gender identity, our participants generally began talking about sexual
orientation and the way that their orientation impacted their gender expression. Without the
context provided by this study, it would be easy to confuse identity with expression and to suggest
that our participants were gender diverse. This has been done in the past when gender expression
has been conflated with gender performance. However, to make this assumption would involve
a misrepresentation of our participants’ beliefs and experiences. Based on their responses, gender
performance and gender expression appear to be closely related and dissimilar from gender
identity. This distinction may appear slight at times, but it is important.

Strengths and limitations

Our study was the first of its kind to analyse gender and drag from an inductive, phenomenological
starting point that employed validity checks. This study was also the first to approach drag and
gender from an intersectional, contextual, and psychological perspective rather than from the basis
of gender or feminist theory. Our analysis of cisgender male, gay, drag queens from a mid-south
state provided a homogeneity in our data that supported the inductive process we employed. The
rigorousness of CQR is also a strength of our study.
However, the homogeneity of our sample could be viewed as a weakness. Also, none of our
researchers identified as drag queens and all of the research team members identified as cisgender
and were highly educated. This homogeneity in the research team may have significantly impacted our
biases and expectations for the study. We attempted to minimize the impact of this bias by holding
12 D. KNUTSON ET AL.

each other accountable throughout the process of coding and through use of an auditor (Hill, 2012).
Additionally, the fact that our sample was drawn from a rural state may have impacted our results.

Conclusions
Scholarly analyses of drag performance become restricted and removed from individual experi-
ences when the internal experiences of performers themselves are not factored into analyses. Drag
at the individual level is best viewed from an intersectional perspective (that considers the multiple
contexts in which drag performance occurs and the forms of marginalization that drag queens may
face), based on the diverse identities drag queens hold, from the viewpoint of the performers
themselves. Contextual and intersectional perspectives allow for some separation between indivi-
dual gender identities and gender performance that we refer to as gender performance. Additional
quantitative and more focused qualitative research is needed to increase awareness about unique
and individual processes that may take place in other drag sub-populations such as drag king
communities. As more studies of this sort are conducted, researchers may be able to differentiate
the unique, intersectional experiences (e.g., gender, sexual orientation, setting, performance) of
drag performers as a collective and as individual, localized communities.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors
Douglas Knutson, PhD (he/him) is an assistant professor in the Department of Psychology at Southern Illinois
University Carbondale. Douglas also earned a Masters of Theology (M.T.S.) from Boston University School of
Theology and a Masters of Education (M.Ed.) in Applied Behavioural Studies with Professional Counselling from
Oklahoma City University. He serves as the Communications Chair for the American Psychological Association Society
of Counselling Psychology Section on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Issues and on the Standing Committee
on Advocacy, Inclusion and Diversity for the Council of Counselling Psychology Training Programs. Douglas’ research
focuses on transgender health and affirmative interventions.
Julie M. Koch, Ph.D. (she/her) is Head of the School of Community Health Sciences, Counselling and Counselling
Psychology at Oklahoma State University. She is a Licenced Health Service Psychologist in the State of Oklahoma. She
serves as a representative from the American Psychological Association to the International Psychology Network for
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Intersex Issues (IPsyNet). Her research interests include multicultural compe-
tence, training, and development of faculty and counsellors; human rights and social justice; LGBTQ mental health
and affirmative practice, especially in rural and international settings; prevention in school settings; and
microaffirmation.
Jenilee Sneed, Ph.D., C-IAYT (she/her) is a psychologist and yoga therapist at Counselling Services in California
Polytechnic State University. Her clinical interests include working with trauma survivors, promoting social justice,
and integrating embodied interventions into psychological practice. She also has a strong interest in qualitative
approaches to research.
Anthony Lee, MPH (he/his) is an Epidemiologist for the Laboratory and Infections Disease Services Division at the
Texas Department of State Health Services, focusing on data analysis on HIV care in the state. His analytical interests
include intersectionality’s impact of HIV care, implicit bias between physicians and people living with HIV (PLWH), and
health disparities among PLWH. He has a strong interest in developing and analysing data sets of disproportionately
affected people living with HIV within the state of Texas.
Mar Chung (they/them) is a graduate student in the counselling psychology program at Southern Illinois University,
Carbondale (SIUC). They received their BS in Psychology, with a minor in Sexuality Studies from University of
California, Davis in 2014. They received their MA in Psychology at SIUC in 2017. Their thesis was an experimental
study on masculinity threat and effects on reported transphobia. Their dissertation is focused on nonbinary indivi-
duals and influences on disordered eating. In their time at SIUC, they have instructed undergraduate classes of Gender
in Diverse Context and Introduction to Clinical and Counselling Psychology. Their research interests and specialties
include: intersectional focus on trans identities and queer/LGB identities, with a queer studies lens.
 JOURNAL OF GENDER STUDIES 13

ORCID
Douglas Knutson http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4905-4769

References
American Psychological Association (APA). (2015). Guidelines for psychological practice with transgender and gender
noncoforming people. Retrieved from http//www.apa.org/practice/guidelines/transgender.pdf
Bailey, J. M. (2003). The man who would be queen: The science of gender-bending and transsexualism. Washington, DC:
Joseph Henry Press.
Becker, H. S. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Brammer, R., & Ginicola, M. M. (2017). Counseling transgender clients. In M. M. Ginicola, C. Smith, & J. M. Filmore (eds.),
Affirmative counseling with LGBTQI+ people (pp. 183–212). Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association.
Butler, J. (2006). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York, NY: Routledge.
Crenshaw, K. W. (1993). Beyond racism and misogyny: Black feminism and 2 live crew. In M. J. Matsuda, C. R. Lawrence,
R. Delgado, & K. W. Crenshaw (eds.), Words that wound: Critical race theory, assaultive speech, and the first
amendment (pp. 111–132). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Egner, J., & Maloney, P. (2016). “It has no color, it has no gender, it’s gender blending”: Gender and sexuality fluidity
and subversiveness in drag performance. Journal of Homosexuality, 63, 875–903.
Fassinger, R. E., & Arseneau, J. R. (2007). “I’d rather get wet than be under that umbrella”: Differentiating the
experiences and identities of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people. In K. J. Bieschke, R. M. Perez, &
K. A. DeBord (eds.), Handbook of counseling and psychotherapy with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender clients
(2nd ed., pp. 19–49). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Ginicola, M. M., Smith, C., & Filmore, J. M. (2017). Affirmative counseling with LGBTQI+ people. Alexandria, VA: American
Counseling Association.
Greaf, C. (2016). Drag queens and gender identity. Journal of Gender Studies, 25(6), 655–665.
Hankins, S. (2015). “I’m a cross between a clown, a stripper, and a streetwalker”: Drag tipping, sex work, and a queer
sociosexual economy. Signs, 40(2), 441–466.
Hill, C. E. (ed.). (2012). Consensual qualitative research: A practical resource for investigating social science phenomena.
Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
Hill, C. E. (2015). Consensual qualitative research (CQR): Methods for conducting psychotherapy research. In
O. C. G. Gelo, A. Pritz, & B. Rieken (eds.), Psychotherapy research: Foundations, process, and outcome (pp.
485–499). New York, NY: Springer.
Hill, C. E., Knox, S., Thompson, B. J., Williams, E. N., Hess, S. A., & Ladany, N. (2005). Consensual qualitative research: An
update. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 196–205.
Hill, C. E., Thompson, B. J., & Williams, E. N. (1997). A guide to conducting consensual qualitative research. The
Counseling Psychologist, 25, 517–572.
Keener, E., & Strough, J. (2017). Having and doing gender: Young adults’ expression of gender when resolving conflicts
with friends and romantic partners. Sex Roles, 76, 618–626.
Knutson, D., & Koch, J. M. (2018). Performance involvement, identity, and emotion among cisgender male drag
queens. Journal of Creativity and Mental Health. doi:10.1080/15401383.2018.1549517
Levitt, H. M., Surace, F. I., Wheeler, E. E., Maki, E., Alcántara, D., Cadet, M., . . . Ngai, C. (2017). Drag gender: Experiences
of gender for gay and queer men who perform drag. Sex Roles, 1–18. doi:10.1007/s11199-017-0802-7
Marinucci, M. (2016). Feminism is queer: The intimate connection between queer and feminist theory (2nd ed.). London,
UK: Zed Books.
Moe, J., Bower, J., & Clark, M. (2017). Counseling queer and genderqueer clients. In K. J. Bieschke, R. M. Perez, &
K. A. DeBord (eds.), Handbook of counseling and psychotherapy with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender clients
(2nd ed., pp. 19–49). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Newton, E. (1979). Mother camp: Female impersonators in America (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago
Press.
Ponterotto, J. G. (2010). Qualitative research in multicultural psychology: Philosophical underpinnings, popular
approaches, and ethical considerations. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 16, 581–589.
Rupp, L. J., & Taylor, V. A. (2003). Drag queens at the 801 Cabaret. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Rupp, L. J., Taylor, V. A., & Shapiro, E. I. (2010). Drag queens and drag kings: The difference gender makes. Sexualities,
13, 275–294.
Yeh, C. J., & Inman, A. G. (2007). Qualitative data analysis and interpretation in counseling psychology: Strategies for
best practices. The Counseling Psychologist, 35, 369–403.