The Library Is Open:

An Intersectional Feminist and Queer Analysis of

RuPaul’s Drag Race

A thesis presented

by

Kaarina Sharon Parker

537674

to

The School of Culture and Communication

in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

Bachelor of Arts (Honours)

in the field of

Screen and Cultural Studies SCRN40016

in the

School of Culture and Communication

The University of Melbourne

Supervisor: Assoc. Prof. Audrey Yue

October 2015

2

ABSTRACT

I will conduct an intersectional feminist analysis of the reality television show

RuPaul’s Drag Race. I will firstly examine it as a reality television format and

demonstrate how it operates as a pastiche of the reality television genre and

queer culture. I will then analyse the construction and performance of racialised

gender by examining the contestants and events on the show. Finally, I will

prove how the show’s representation positively impacts the LGBT community

and contributes to feminist discourse around transgender issues. In doing this,

my thesis will argue that the reality television show RuPaul’s Drag Race creates

valuable representation for the LGBT community, and promotes female

empowerment, but that this progressiveness is undercut by a privileging of white

femininity.

ACKNOWLDGEMENTS

I would like to thank Audrey Yue for always providing prompt and constructive

feedback, and helping me to craft this thesis into something I can be proud of.

Thank you also to my parents, John and Erin Parker, for supporting me

emotionally and financially through this year.

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

! Literature Review

! Chapter Overviews

! Notes on Terminology

CHAPTER ONE AMERICA’S NEXT DRAG SUPERSTAR: RUPAUL’S DRAG

RACE IN THE REALITY TELEVISION MAINSTREAM

! RPDR Overview

! Reality Television Predecessors

! Rise of Transgender Visibility

! RuPaul

! RuPaul’s Drag Race as Reality Television

! Conclusion

CHAPTER TWO “GENTLEMEN, START YOUR ENGINES. AND MAY THE BEST

(WHITE?) WOMAN WIN”: THE CONSTRUCTION AND PERFORMANCE OF

RACIALISED GENDER

! The Practice of Drag

! Drag Scholarship

! Ru Girls: the Contestants of RPDR

! “Category is…”: RuPaul’s Drag Balls

! The Workroom

! Queen Eye for the Straight Guy: The RPDR Makeover

! Conclusion

CHAPTER THREE “EVERYBODY SAY LOVE”: THE IMPACT OF RUPAUL’S

DRAG RACE

! Framing Feminist Perspectives on Transgender Studies

! Transgender Response to RPDR

! Feminist Response to RPDR

! Online Fan Communities

4

! Conclusion

CONCLUSION

REFERENCES

5

INTRODUCTION

As an intersectional feminist and long time fan of RuPaul’s Drag Race

(hereafter, the acronym RPDR will be used), my aim in writing this thesis was to

determine how the show creates positive representation and visibility for

marginalised groups within the LGBTQIA+1 (hereafter, the acronym LGBT will

be used) community. The theory of intersectionality dictates that one cannot

simply examine the treatment of one group of people in doing this – the show

portrays people of various sexualities, gender identities, and racial and ethnic

groups. Therefore, an intersectional feminist analysis must take the treatment of

not just one of these groups into account when determining the subversive and

positive impact of the show. With this in mind, I have examined the

representation of race, gender, and sexuality in my analysis of RPDR.

What initially drew me to RPDR was its appeal to me personally, as both a

woman and a member of the LGBT community. This appeal was in what I

considered to be the show’s thematic embrace of female empowerment, in the

practice and performance of drag, and the unique level of visibility that it gave to

LGBT people on their own terms in a mainstream television context. While I still

believe these two facts hold true, I have been confronted through writing this

thesis with the fact that the show privileges white femininity in its portrayal of

drag, and that this compromises its ability to give wholly positive or subversive

representation. I cannot write off the show completely as I still feel that the sheer

quantity of LGBT representation that it provides is important and unprecedented,

as well as the fact that this representation is controlled by LGBT people and

allies. However, its greatest fault is its treatment of race, which in a show helmed

by an LGBT African American star (in the form of RuPaul) is a complex issue.

This thesis is an attempt to navigate this issue, examining different aspects of the

show through various theoretical lenses in order to arrive ultimately at the

conclusion that its representation is both significant and flawed. Through an

1 LGBTQIA stands for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, asexual, and anyone whose sexual or gender orientation lies outside of cis-heteronormativity (cis: identifying with the gender you were assigned at birth).

6

intersectional analysis of the show, I have determined that the progressive and

subversive potential of RPDR lies in its exposure of the constructed and enacted

nature of binary genders, and its message of empowerment through femininity.

However, this subversive potential is undercut by a privileging of white

femininity in the context of a multi-racial society.

LITERATURE REVIEW The current scholarship on RPDR is relatively divided on the subversive value

and positive impact of the show. Existing essays present a variety of conclusions

about the show’s relationship to existing power structures. The essays compiled

by Jim Daems (2014) in The Makeup of RuPaul’s Drag Race: Essays on the

Queen of Reality Shows comprise the majority of existing scholarship on

RuPaul’s Drag Race. Each presents a different perspective on the show, and

their conclusions are varied.

There are a number of essays which focus specifically on the issue of race on the

show. Libby Antony’s (2014) paper addresses the portrayal of Puerto Rican

contestants in seasons 1-4. She analyses the significance of ‘standard English’ in

the show, and how this affects the contestants’ journey to becoming “America’s

Next Drag Superstar”. She argues that the show’s competition format and

judging criteria are structured in such a way that Puerto Rican contestants are

disadvantaged by their accents. Gabriel Mayora (2014) also addresses the

treatment of Puerto Rican queens on the show, arguing that they are treated as

less ‘sophisticated’ than their white counterparts. Josh Morrison (2014) discusses

the issue of race in his essay, by examining the presence of ‘homonormativity’ in

RPDR – specifically, how the show uses assimilationist strategies in its

promotion of LGBT rights which result in a privileging of whiteness. As part of

an intersectional feminist analysis, I will be looking extensively at the issues

raised by Morrison and Mayora, about the prioritisation of whiteness on RPDR. I

will explore this issue by analysing the image of RuPaul herself, and then by

analysing the construction of racialised gender as part of the drag performance

on the show.

7

Kai Kholsdorf deconstructs the reality television format of RPDR, and argues

that the commercial nature of reality television and the mainstream media results

in a commodification of queerness which undermines any potential the show

might have for subverting existing power structures or providing positive

representation for marginalised groups. His arguments bear similarity to those

made by Sender (2005) and Velazquez (2008; 2010) in their critical analyses of

Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, in which they argue that positive representation

is made impossible by the gay stereotypes relied upon to sell products. My own

argument about the reality television format of RPDR stands in direct opposition

to this. I will analyse the format of the show and its position in the mainstream

media, to demonstrate how RPDR works within the reality television format to

prioritise LGBT interests and provide unique representation for LGBT groups.

Mary Marcel (2014) argues that RPDR provides representation and visibility for

a number of non-traditional sex and gender orientations, as well as being racially

and ethnically diverse. She draws attention to the fact that the show is both

created and performed by drag queens, a point which is important to consider

when discussing the show’s ability to give fair representation to marginalised

groups. She is however, critical of the construction and portrayal of femininity

on the show – she argues that RPDR can fall into the trappings of misogyny and

transphobia in its criteria for femininity and the language that it uses to convey

this. Similarly, Laurie Norris (2014) addresses the concept of ‘homonormativity’

as it appears in the show - she defines homonormativity as the othering of

members of the queer community who exist outside of a strict and normative

‘gayness’. She identifies this in how the judges are hypercritical of the

appearances and femininity of the contestants, many of whom are asked to

change to meet their specific standards or “sashay away”. However she also

draws attention to how RPDR applies high camp to the existing tropes of the

reality TV genre to create a safe space for queer expression and visibility. The

works of both Marcel and Norris focus on the way that RPDR simultaneously

creates unique representation for marginalised sexual and gender orientations,

while also struggling with problematic representations of gender. My thesis will

take a similar approach - I will be analysing the way that seasons 4-7 of RPDR

contain both subversive and problematic content. I will argue that the show

8

exposes the constructed nature of heterosexual binary genders and promotes a

more fluid understanding of gender identity and expression, and provides

valuable and unique representation for marginalised groups in the mainstream

media. However I will also address the problematic representation of racialised

gender on the show.

As these essays were all written during or prior to 2014, none addresses the most

recent season of RPDR (season 7, aired March 2015), and only a few of them

refer to season 6. My thesis will advance their analyses, and include the seventh

season in its analysis, which is relevant specifically because of the more fluid

presentation of gender expression given in the most recent season, and prioritized

in the crowning of an openly genderfluid contestant (Violet Chachki). My thesis

will also take into account the impact that the show has had on the wider LGBT

community, through an analysis of the journalistic response and online fan

communities for RPDR.

CHAPTER OVERVIEWS

In order to demonstrate this, I have organized my thesis into three main chapters

to address each point of my argument. The first chapter focuses on RPDR as a

reality television format in the mainstream media. It establishes the reality

television format and predecessors for RPDR, as well as the rise of transgender

visibility in the mainstream leading to RPDR. This sets the stage for my

argument that RPDR operates as a pastiche of reality television tropes and queer

culture in order to provide representation for LGBT groups in the mainstream

media. To argue this, I will use intersectional theory to analyse RuPaul as the

African American LGBT star of RPDR, and the implications of this. I will then

analyse how the show uses the reality television format to support and feature

LGBT interests, and how this creates positive representation.

My second chapter focuses specifically on the construction and performance of

racialised gender within the show, and how this impacts its ability to create

representation and challenge existing power structures. I will build upon my

intersectional analysis of the image of RuPaul by examining the performances of

individual contestants on RPDR and their construction and performance of

9

racialised gender. I will then analyse the ways in which gender and race are

represented in different parts of the show, including the workroom scenes and the

challenges. Ultimately I will argue that RPDR’s relationship to existing power

structures is complex, as the show is problematic in its portrayal of racialised

gender, but also makes some progress in deconstructing and challenging

heterosexist binary understandings of gender.

Lastly, the third chapter will demonstrate the impact of RPDR on feminist

discourse, transgender activism, and the LGBT community. To execute this, I

will firstly review the current feminist discourse around transgender issues and

the practice of drag, including the work of Jeffreys (1997) and Butler (2014). I

will then assess the transgender community’s response to RPDR by reviewing

the online journalism written by transgender activists discussing the show’s

treatment of transgender issues and individuals. I will also examine the feminist

response to RPDR by reviewing articles online written about the show from a

feminist perspective. Finally, I will analyse the participatory online fan culture

for the show on YouTube and Facebook, in order to demonstrate the positive

impact of RPDR on individual members of the LGBT and feminist communities.

NOTES ON TERMINOLOGY The term ‘drag’ is used in a variety of different ways, and functions as both a

verb and a noun. In this thesis, I will use the term ‘drag’ to specifically refer to

the practice of cross-dressing, as something that is enacted. I will not be using

the term ‘female impersonator’ to refer to drag performers, except when directly

quoting from a source that does, because the term is insensitive to transgender

women who perform drag. The drag performers on the show I will refer to

simply as ‘contestants’ throughout this thesis. I will use female pronouns when

referring to the contestants, as this is how they are addressed on the show.

RuPaul has specified that she has no preference for male or female pronouns,

both in or out of drag, in her autobiography Workin’ It (RuPaul, 2010). For the

purpose of this thesis, I will refer to RuPaul with female pronouns.

Transgender is a term used frequently in current feminist discourse, and often

with a variety of different meanings. The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against

10

Defamation (GLAAD) defines it to mean “an umbrella term for people whose

gender identity and/or gender expression differs from what is typically associated

with the sex they were assigned at birth” (2011). For the purpose of this thesis, I

will be using ‘transgender’ (or ‘trans’) to refer specifically to people whose

gender identity does not conform to that which they were assigned at birth – this

includes some but not all drag queens, as some drag queens identify as cisgender

men who perform in drag but do not identity as anything other than male. Some

of the theories I will be engaging with, including those of Jeffreys (1997; 2014),

use ‘transsexual’2 as well as transgender, so I will use this term when quoting

them but not otherwise.

I also want to acknowledge that the use of the word ‘queer’ is contentious, as it

has a history as a slur used to degrade and deride members of the LGBT

community. However, in the context of this thesis and in wider academia, it is

used as an umbrella term for anyone whose identity or orientation places them

outside of cis-heteropatriarchal society. I will employ the word ‘queer’ in an

academic context, when referring to concepts and theories which deal with issues

of gender and sexuality, as well as the issue of queer representation in the media.

When referring to the specific gender and sexual identities of individuals,

however, I will use the term LGBT (which is here a shortened version of the

acronym LBGTQIA+,3 referring to any person whose gender or sexual identity

falls outside of the heterosexual binary).

2 Transsexual is a term with its origins in the medical and psychiatric communities and refers specifically to people who have undergone medical procedures as part of their transition (GLAAD, 2011). 3 Acronym stands for Lesbian, Bisexual, Gay, Transgender, Queer, Intersex, Asexual, and any other non-cisgender or non-heteronormative identity.

11

CHAPTER ONE America’s Next Drag Superstar: RuPaul’s Drag Race in

the reality television mainstream

In this chapter I will examine the reality television format of RPDR, and its

position within the mainstream media, in order to determine its potential for

creating visibility and representation for LGBT groups. To do this, I will look

firstly at the show’s reality television predecessors, and establish the rise of

visibility of transgender characters, stories, and people in the mainstream media.

To study the reality television format of RPDR, I will analyse the career and

image of RuPaul as the eponymous star of RPDR. For this analysis I will invoke

theories of intersectionality to examine the significance of RuPaul’s role as a

homosexual African-American drag queen and celebrity, and her performance of

femininity. Ultimately with this chapter, I will demonstrate how RPDR operates

within the reality television format as a pastiche of reality television tropes and

elements of LGBT culture, to create a unique television product capable of

mainstream representation for marginalised groups.

RPDR OVERVIEW

RPDR is a reality television show produced by World of Wonder and RuPaul

Charles, and broadcast on Logo TV. The show first aired in 2009, with the

seventh season finishing in June 2015 and an eighth season currently filming

(Greenwood, 2015). The show sees a group of contestants (made up of drag

queens from across America) compete to be crowned America’s Next Drag

Superstar. Each week the contestants face ‘mini’ and ‘maxi’ challenges which

include sewing, styling, acting, singing, dancing, lip-synching, and stand-up

comedy. The criteria for success in these challenges is for the contestants to

adequately convey their “charisma, uniqueness, nerve, and talent” (Logo TV,

2009 - present). Each week they must also compile a look for the runway based

on that week’s category. After each challenge and subsequent runway walk, they

are judged by a panel led by RuPaul, who acts as head judge, mentor, and host.

The rest of the panel is made up of regular and guest judges. The two contestants

12

whose performances are deemed the least worthy are made to lip-synch for their

lives, with the losing contestant told to “sashay away” (Logo TV, 2009 -

present). Once the final three or four remain, they star in a music video for

RuPaul’s latest single, and then a winner is crowned during the finale episode.

The show has garnered significant success since its debut on Logo TV in 2009.

Currently Logo’s highest rated program, with season 7 seeing a 33% growth in

ratings, each new season of the show attracts attention and guest starring roles

from increasingly famous celebrities – the most recent season featured popstars

Ariana Grande and Demi Lovato, as well as Miley Cyrus in the live finale

(Lambe, 2015). With its largest viewership in the 18-49 age range (Shepherd,

2013), RPDR has accumulated a fan base with a powerful online presence on

social media sites such as twitter, tumblr, and facebook, each of which houses a

thriving and vocal RPDR fan community. Passion Distribution, the international

sales company which distributes RPDR globally, has garnered deals for

distributing all seasons (including the not yet filmed eighth season) in Canada,

the UK, and Australia. They have also sold the licensing for the show to UK

broadcaster truTV, who plan to launch a UK version of RPDR in 2016 (Alcinii,

2015).

REALITY TV PREDECESSORS

This section examines the reality television format, and the predecessors to

RPDR within this format. Murray and Ouelette (2004) define reality TV as “the

fusion of popular entertainment with a self-conscious claim to the discourse of

the real” (p. 3). The reality TV format includes a variety of specialised sub-

formats, including the “talent contest” or competition format, and the “makeover

program” (Murray and Ouelette, 2004, p.4). RPDR is a ‘talent

contest’/’competition format’ television show, using elements of the ‘makeover

program’. The contestants compete to be crowned “America’s Next Drag

Superstar” (Logo TV, 2009 - present) in a format similar to that of a talent show

or beauty pageant – they are set a number of challenges which test a variety of

skills, including comedy, makeup, fashion design, garment construction,

television presenting, singing, dancing, and lip-synching. All of which are

deemed necessary to be a successful ‘drag superstar’ - the idea of a drag queen

13

who transcends the niche culture of drag to appeal to a mainstream market and

bring exposure to gay culture (modelled off RuPaul). RPDR combines the

‘competition’ and ‘makeover’ reality television sub-formats - the competition to

become “America’s Next Drag Superstar”, and the challenges (usually one or

two each season) revolving around making over ‘ordinary’ people into drag

queens. RPDR was preceded in the mainstream by two prolific and successful

shows: Queer Eye for the Straight Guy (Logo TV, 2003-2007), and America’s

Next Top Model (UPN, 2003 – present).

Queer Eye for the Straight Guy is one of the more successful examples of the

‘makeover’ format, as well as one of the first examples of queer-subject reality

TV, with a reported record-breaking viewership during its first season (Vargas,

2010, p. 44). The show features the “Fab Five” – described by Vargas (2010) as

a group of five gay men who use their combined expertise to ‘makeover’ a

straight man and turn him into a more sophisticated member of society by

dressing him, rearranging and cleaning his house, and making him more

‘sophisticated’ and stylish (p. 1). In addition to its commercial success, the show

is unique in its queerness – by following the adventures of the out and proud Fab

Five it creates an LGBT presence in mainstream television. However, Vargas

(2010) argues that the portrayal of queer identities in Queer Eye is deeply flawed

- the ‘Fab Five’ are unable to function outside of normative social and capitalist

expectations because of the materialistic nature of a genre which “ignores social

responsibility” (p. 54). Instead, the show profits from damaging stereotypes of

gay men as the Fab Five are portrayed as catty, superficial, sex-driven, and

image-obsessed (Sender, 2005, p. 7). These men are employed in the service of a

heterosexual male ‘protagonist’, who is the real focus of the show. Kelley and

Meyer (2004) argue that this stereotypical portrayal does more to enforce

heteronormative ideas about the bitchiness and superficiality of gay men, than to

subvert them – their stories are never really ‘told’ and they remain one-

dimensional caricatures (p. 216). Although the use of queerness in Queer Eye is

in many ways problematic, it certainly helped to set a precedent for RPDR in that

it created a level of awareness and acceptance of queer identities in the television

mainstream (Meyer and Kelley, 2004, p. 214).

14

One of the most successful examples of the ‘competition’ sub-genre is America’s

Next Top Model (ANTM), which first premiered in 2003 and is still running with

its 22nd season scheduled for release in 2015 (Rigby, 2014). Part of what makes

RPDR singular and successful is its ability to operate as a pastiche of existing

reality TV tropes, with an infusion of drag culture and comedy. The most

obvious point of reference for RPDR is ANTM. The shows both use the

competition format (contestants competing to be “America’s Next Top Model”

and “America’s Next Drag Superstar” respectively) and RPDR profits from

references and comparisons to ANTM. These references are evident throughout

the show, from the language (“America’s Next Drag Superstar” as a version of

“America’s Next Top Model”), to the visual of the judging panel (RuPaul in full

drag, flanked on either side by a gay male and straight female judge). The

parallels between RuPaul and the star and host of ANTM, Tyra Banks, are

obvious – successful black women in their field, acting as matriarchal figures for

a group of hopefuls trying to be crowned “America’s Next”. They both feature

their careers and origins stories throughout the show, in advice given and also as

inspiration for the challenges (Norris, 2014, p.). However it is the conscious

ways that RPDR departs from ANTM, despite their similarities, that allow it to

subvert some of the heteronormative and patriarchal values present in ANTM.

Obviously the greatest difference between the two is the subject matter – while

ANTM features mostly straight cisgender women (later seasons would often

feature a token ‘queer girl’, like the lesbian Kim of season 5 or transgender Isis

in season 11), RPDR features exclusively LGBT contestants.1 LGBT culture is

briefly featured in ANTM, with the girls often being coached by transgender icon

Miss J Alexander who specialises in runway walks, or Benny Ninja of the House

of Ninja whose voguing2 experience is employed to help them pose. Despite this

however, LGBT culture is not celebrated or supported like it is on RPDR –

rather, it is a prop for the contestants of ANTM to use in their quest for success,

1 Contestants on RuPaul’s Drag Race identify as queer in either their sexuality or their gender (the show has featured cisgender gay and bisexual men, as well as transgender women and genderfluid individuals). 2 Voguing is a form of dance whose origins lie in the Black and Latino queer communities of New York – it gained mainstream awareness in the film Paris is Burning (Livingston, 1990) and was swiftly appropriated by pop icon Madonna.

15

but not for them to actually be a part of. However on RPDR, an understanding

and embodiment of LGBT culture (in the performance of drag) is part of not just

the competition, but the identities of the contestants and RuPaul herself.

RPDR also requires a more extensive skill set than that of ANTM. Whereas the

challenges of ANTM are almost all photo shoots, with the occasional acting

challenge, those competing for the title of “America’s Next Drag Superstar” are

expected to lip-sync, sew, style, act, sing, and dance, all in addition to

maintaining an attractive and entertaining drag persona. RPDR doesn’t consider

beauty to be the sole criteria for a ‘successful woman’, as ANTM would seem to.

RPDR also has several challenges focused specifically on an understanding and

appreciation of queer history – for example, the Stonewall challenge of season 4,

which saw contestants decorate a float and design an outfit to both pay tribute to

the Stonewall movement which is the foundation of the LGBT Pride

consciousness, as well as to promote the Pride festival itself. The episode

featured footage of the contestants discussing Stonewall amongst themselves,

with the older drag queens educating the younger performers about the history of

drag culture (Logo TV, 2012). This is one of the ways in which RPDR supports

queer interests, by treating the history and culture of the LGBT with the respect it

deserves.

The way that RPDR both references and surpasses its reality television

predecessors is part of what makes the show successful both commercially and

as a form of representation for LGBT groups. The rise of transgender visibility in

the mainstream media preceding RPDR also contributes to the show’s success,

allowing for the portrayal of LGBT stories in a mainstream context.

RISE OF TRANS VISIBILITY

There has been a noticeable rise in the visibility of transgender characters and

people in popular culture, both preceding RPDR and since the show began.

Beginning with the release of the documentary Paris Is Burning (Livingston,

1990) at the Sundance Film Festival, which gained cult status amongst film

audiences and LGBT culture alike (Moylan, 2015). The film explores the Harlem

drag-ball scene and its participants, the majority of whom are working-class

16

African-American or Latino (Gerstner, 2012, p. 87). LGBT culture began to

reappear in popular culture throughout the 1990s and 2000s, including popular

cinema. The presence of trans characters in film of the 1990s and 2000s can be

almost entirely sorted into two categories – tragedy and comedy. Popular and

critically acclaimed films like The Crying Game (Jordan, 1992), Boys Don’t Cry

(Peirce, 1999), and Dallas Buyer’s Club (Vallee, 2013) all featured transgender

protagonists who met tragic fates as a result of their gender identity.

Alternatively, films like The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert

(Elliott, 1994), The Birdcage (Nichols, 1996), and Rent (Columbus, 2005)

successfully made comedy from the notion of dressing up as a different gender

for entertainment. This adherence to either comedy or tragedy in the medium of

film can be attributed to the fact that filmmakers are often answerable to a

commercial interest and an industry infused with traditional white

heteropatriarchal values. Judith Halberstam (2005) notes that filmmakers rely on

provoking strong feelings from their audience to be able to give access to

transgender stories – feelings of revulsion, ridicule, or sympathy (p. 77).

This trend is slightly altered in the medium of television, which has begun to

feature a growing number of transgender characters and performers in the years

since RPDR first aired in 2009. Beginning with the casting of trans actress

Candis Cayne in Dirty Sexy Money in 2007, making her the first trans artist to

receive a recurring role in a primetime television series (Tomashoff, 2015).

Cayne’s character (also a transgender woman) was neither a punchline nor a

tragic victim. In 2008, America’s Next Top Model featured its first transgender

contestant, aspiring model Isis King (Cashmore, 2012, p. 91). Since RPDR, long

running television series Glee (2009-2015) featured multiple transgender

characters of varying genders, including a character who transitioned from

female to male on the show (Stanhope, 2015). The award winning Netflix series

Orange is the New Black (first aired 2013) features a lauded portrayal of trans

woman Sofia Burrett by trans activist and artist Laverne Cox (Tomashoff, 2015).

Winner of the 2014 Golden Globe for Best Drama was the television series

Transparent (2014) which follows the story of a family whose patriarch comes

out as a transgender woman (Mathieson, 2015). Sense8 (Netflix, 2015), a series

co-created by trans woman Lana Wachowski, also features a transgender

17

character in the main cast, played by trans actress Jamie Clayton (Sandberg,

2015).

In addition to the growing portrayal of transgender stories and characters in

television, there has been growing relevance of transgender issues in popular

media. A notable example of this is Caitlyn Jenner, a former Olympian best

known as patriarch of reality television family The Kardashians. Caitlyn came

out as transgender in 2015 during a live primetime interview which was watched

by almost 17 million people (Kaplan and Slattery, 2015), followed by a cover of

Vanity Fair on which she debuted her openly female identity for the first time.

This brought the conversation about gender identity into the mainstream. RPDR

is certainly part of this rise of transgender visibility and interest, with its seventh

season boasting over six million viewers before the forth episode aired

(Nededog, 2015). With its seventh season having produced LogoTV’s highest

ratings yet, the show is cementing its mainstream success, including

endorsements by popular culture icons like Miley Cyrus, who performed on

stage at the 2015 MTV Video Music Awards with her favourite contestants from

RPDR (Maslow, 2015). Season seven also featured a star-studded array of guest

judges including Arianna Grande, Demi Lovato, Jessica Alba, John Waters,

Kathie Griffin, Kat Dennings, Olivia Newton-John, and ex-Spice Girl Mel B

(TheBacklot, 2015).

RUPAUL

Having established how the rise of transgender representation in the mainstream

media has set the stage for the mainstream success of RPDR, I will now analyse

how the show uses this mainstream platform to give representation to LGBT

stories. To do this, I will first examine RuPaul as the star of RPDR. Part of

RPDR’s success, as well as its relevance in the rise of trans in the media, is the

presence of RuPaul herself as the eponymous star, mentor, judge, and host of the

show. Born into a working class African-American family in San Diego, RuPaul

identified as gay from a young age (RuPaul, 1995, p. 20, 66). Throughout a

career spanning several decades, RuPaul has succeeded in making herself into a

brand. She is the face of the show, what Richard Dyer (1998) would call the

‘star’. Dyer’s star theory involves the idea that the ‘star’ persona is manufactured

18

to promote a brand or product, and design to mimic real life in a way that makes

them accessible but also desirable (p. 35).

RuPaul’s career since the early 1990s has achieved exactly this. With the release

of her song, “Supermodel (You Better Work)” in 1993, Ru succeeded in

breaking into the mainstream. Her song went to number 45 on the Billboard Hot

100 chart, and became a fixture in dance clubs across America. The subsequent

album performed very well in the charts, resulting in RuPaul making an

appearance at the MTV Music Video Awards in 1993, and co-hosting the BRIT

Awards with Elton John the same year. RuPaul then became a spokesmodel for

the makeup brand M.A.C, which released the ‘RuPaul Viva Glam’ collection,

making her the first ever drag queen supermodel (Maddeaux, 2014). RuPaul’s

successful music career continued with multiple albums released throughout the

1990s, all of which placed well on the charts. In 1996 RuPaul was given her own

talk show on the channel VH1 which she hosted in drag, and featured an array of

notable celebrities including Diana Ross, Nirvana, Mary J. Blige, Pete Burns,

Olivia Newton-John, and Cyndi Lauper. However RuPaul’s career began to stall

in the early-mid 2000s, which he attributes to pulling back from the public eye

because of the hostile socio-political environment of America under the Bush-

administration (Marcel, 2014, p. 14). Despite this however, when RPDR was

Figures 1.1 and 1.2 RuPaul’s early ‘genderfuck’ drag

19

Figure 1.3 RuPaul’s ‘glamour’ drag as featured on RPDR

announced in 2008 and released in 2009, RuPaul’s star value was enough to act

as a vehicle for the show. The relationship between RuPaul and RPDR is a

symbiotic one, with RuPaul’s cult status bringing attention to the show, and the

mainstream success of the show revitalising RuPaul’s career.

RuPaul’s drag aesthetic has changed significantly over her career. In her early

20s, RuPaul performed what she described as ‘genderfuck drag’3 –

experimenting with alternative, non-binary, and non-white visual indicators of

gender. Her looks often featured elements of African culture, including jewellery

and fabrics, with hairstyles typical of black women (see

figure 1.1). She played with elements and expectations of

binary gender, for example wearing see-through tops

exposing her male-bodied torso in combination with mini-

skirts, or not shaving her body hair (see figure 1.2). This

style of cross-dressing is what Bell Hooks (2012) describes

as a “critique of phallocentric masculinity” (p. 146-7) – she

explains how the political origins of male to female drag lie

in a desire to challenge the notion of subjectivity, and

destabilise existing power structures. Shout outs are made in

RPDR to this era of RuPaul’s career,4 but we never actually

see her dressed this way at any point. As her career took off

in the 1990s, RuPaul’s drag aesthetic shifted to a more

mainstream, palatable depiction of female beauty and

womanhood, eventually arriving at the signature look

featured on RPDR. RuPaul is now known for her signature

blonde wigs, long legs, and ‘high glamour’ drag – this is

the style of drag she presents consistently on RPDR with

no exceptions. Glamour drag, according to Newton

(1972), emulates the kind of clean, familiar beauty of

3 ‘Genderfuck drag’ is a term used by RuPaul to describe her early drag aesthetic. It refers to an androgynous drag performance, combining elements of masculine and feminine to literally ‘fuck with gender’. 4 For example, in episode 4 of the fifth season, when contestants must perform a ballet which tells the story of RuPaul’s rise to fame from humble beginnings (Logo TV, 2009-present).

20

women like Marilyn Monroe or Elizabeth Taylor (p.43). Because this beauty is

derivative of mainstream Hollywood beauty ideals, it involves a restrictive,

racist, and binary understanding of what constitutes femininity (Hooks, p.147).

RuPaul’s drag seeks to conceal all indicators of male-bodiedness, by utilising

indicators of white, thin, feminine beauty – large blonde hair, highlighted skin,

padded hips, cinched waist, and breastplates (see figure 1.3).5 The result of this is

that her drag persona presents an idealised beauty based on classist and white

perceptions of beauty and femininity. In accordance with Hooks’ argument, drag

performers who only perform or prioritise this kind of beauty do so at the

expense of non-white racialised femininity (p. 148). To prioritise white beauty is

to perpetuate the damaging idea that African-American, Latino, or Asian

femininities are somehow inferior to white femininity, and therefore less

desirable for performers and audiences alike. For RuPaul, as a black drag queen

with a mainstream media platform, to choose to only inhabit this ‘glamour drag’,

is damaging as it both perpetuates white supremacist ideals of femininity and

beauty, and teaches other non-white drag queens (especially those competing on

the show hoping to become as successful as RuPaul) that to be a beautiful

woman is to privilege rich white womanhood.

Despite the elements of white beauty that RuPaul incorporates into her image,

she still consistently describes herself as a “successful black woman”. Patricia

Hill Collins (2004) describes how, in order to achieve middle class status in a

society ruled by white patriarchy, black femininity must adhere to a “politics of

respectability” (p. 139). This involves, according to Collins (2004), distancing

oneself from the stereotypes of promiscuity, bitchiness, and loudness prescribed

to working class black women (p. 138-9). This is the kind of black femininity

that RuPaul herself emulates in her drag persona featured on the show. The

‘Black Lady Overachiever’: a respectable, clean, middle-class black woman who

is both beautiful and non-sexualised (Chavez and Griffin, 2012, p. 41). Although

RuPaul is always expensively dressed and perfectly made up, her outfits are

never overtly sexualised, and she remains in a position of dignity and authority

throughout the show. Sitting perfectly poised at the end of the runway, judging

5 A breastplate is a silicone or rubber model of breasts which some drag queens wear under their clothes to give the impression of realistic breasts.

21

each contestant as they walk to her hit singles, she is always perfectly put

together, and the viewer is constantly reminded of just how successful and varied

RuPaul’s career has been. This success is complemented by distancing herself

from the stereotypical elements of working-class black femininity identified by

Collins (2012, p. 123). The construction of RuPaul’s image is such that some of

her potentially subversive qualities are compromised by a reliance on white

beauty standards and respectability politics, which undermine her ability to

adequately respect and represent black femininity.

As she is the star of RPDR, RuPaul’s image is used to advertise the show in

mainstream media. Promotional posters for the show feature the image of RuPaul

as the focus (see figure 1.4), and trailers for each upcoming season use RuPaul’s

image and characteristic laugh. Thus the image of RuPaul plays some part in the

wider public’s perception of drag – the mainstream status of RPDR affords a

level of visibility to the drag featured on the show, which is not available to most

drag queens during their careers.

Within the context of RPDR, RuPaul is positioned as supreme – the winner is

cited to become America’s Next Drag Superstar, following in the already

superstar footsteps of RuPaul herself. Before the runway show of each episode,

during which the contestants showcase their looks and receive their critiques for

the week’s main challenge, RuPaul walks the runway to her own hit song

Figure 1.4 A billboard advertising season 5 of RuPaul’s Drag Race in L.A.

22

‘Covergirl’, dressed for the week’s theme. RuPaul’s own runway display is

presented as the standard to which the contestants are aspiring – her look is

always perfectly ‘polished’6 and extravagant, befitting her status as a matriarchal

idol over ‘her girls’7. Her career and life are mythologised within the show, as

the contestants are completely cut off from the outside world and during the

course of filming inhabit a world constructed around the performance of drag

with RuPaul positioned as their all-seeing, all-knowing, benign ruler and mentor.

At every stage during each episode, the presence of RuPaul is felt – her face

appears on a television screen in the workroom to address the contestants at the

beginning of the episode, then RuPaul emerges (out of drag) to issue them with

the week’s challenge and offer some advice. Later in the day she returns to the

workroom to oversee what the contestants are doing and critique their work,

often appearing unimpressed or steering them in a different direction. Then we

see RuPaul in full drag walk the runway before taking her seat at the centre of

the judging table, where she looks down upon each contestant as they walk the

runway to one of RuPaul’s songs and offer their work to be critiqued. Even

during the judge’s critiques, RuPaul’s voice is authoritative – she dismisses the

contestants and calls on the judges’ opinions, before interrupting them by calling:

“Silence! I have made my decision. Bring back my girls.” (Logo TV, 2009 -

present). This position of power that RuPaul inhabits is significant – it assures

the audience that control over the show is held by an LGBT figure. RuPaul often

makes a point of diverging from the opinions of the other judges and doing

exactly what she wants, resulting in controversial eliminations.8 She chooses the

challenges, she chooses the themes, she has the last say about any judging

decisions, and it is her approval that the contestants seek.

6 ‘Polished’ is a slang term used by drag queens to indicate when someone’s look is clean and expensive looking 7 RuPaul refers to the contestants as “my girls” when describing them in the show, and often addresses them as such. 8 For example, the elimination of Trixie Mattel, season 7, which was against the advice of all the other judges and sparked the online movement #JusticeforTrixie amongst the fan base on social media. There have also been times when RuPaul has sent two contestants home in one episode (season 5, episode 4), or not eliminated anyone at all (season 5, episode 7; season 6, episode 8).

23

Hooks (2012), in her critique of Paris Is Burning, notes that one of the issues

with the film is that creative control was entirely in the hands of a white cis-

female filmmaker – despite the fact that the subjects of the film were mostly

transgender and non-white (p. 151). This is problematic because it means that the

film is shaped by Livingston’s perspective, which is one with limited

understanding of her subjects. RPDR, by contrast, is a show created by an

African-American drag queen who inhabits the role of producer and head

judge/host, and is broadcast by a network that specialises in LGBT

programming. By all appearances, the show’s content is controlled by LGBT

people and allies, and therefore presumably presents a more realistic and

empathetic understanding of LGBT lives and culture (Marcel, p. 18). RuPaul’s

position in the show as an LGBT person is progressive, and helps with the

creation of positive representation for LGBT lives in the mainstream media.

However, the problematic nature of the way that RuPaul performs drag, as an

African American drag queen enacting white femininity, compromises the

quality of the representation being given.

RUPAUL’S DRAG RACE AS REALITY TELEVISION

This section will examine exactly how RPDR operates as a reality television

format in order to create visibility and representation for LGBT groups. Having

earlier established how RPDR is a reality television format, and locating it within

the mainstream media and the rise of transgender visibility, I will now show how

these factors contribute to its success in supporting LGBT interests.

One of the ways that RPDR supports LGBT interests is by featuring only

sponsors who have exhibited support for LGBT movements. Absolut Vodka was

the show’s main sponsor from its premiere until the end of season 6 (Elliott,

2015). The specialist gay travel company Al and Chuck Travel sponsored the

show for its first six seasons and continue to run cruise holidays featuring RPDR

alumni. A reality TV show featuring drag queens has inevitable cosmetics

company sponsors also - M.A.C was a sponsor for the first season and All Stars,

KRYOLAN (a makeup brand famously frequented by drag queens) sponsored

season 3, NYX Cosmetics offered prizes for seasons 2 and 4, before finally

ColourEvolution took over in season 5, a makeup brand with whom RuPaul has

24

her own line. Season 7 is sponsored by Anastasia Beverly Hills cosmetics. These

brands are all openly LBGT friendly, through support for issues like gay

marriage, or featuring LGBT celebrities as spokespeople.

Through seasons 4-7, the show has continued to create space for queer

representation and voices within the reality television genre. RPDR is a form of

self-representation for people of queer sexual and gender orientations, which

counters a “long history of negative representations in popular culture” (Daems,

2014, p.). The show makes a point of showcasing not only the fabulous and

spectacular drag personas and performances, but also the ‘human beings beneath

the drag’ – the people or marginalised sexual or gender orientations who have

had to struggle for acceptance as a result of their identities. One of the most

effective ways that the show does this is through one-on-one interviews with

contestants intercut with the competition footage. In these interviews, the

contestants are shown out of drag, dressed in their casual everyday clothes, and

they address the camera directly often about the events unfolding on screen.

These moments often produce some of the more emotional content of the show,

with contestants being encouraged to share personal stories of hardship, allegedly

with the goal of addressing anyone in the audience who might be suffering

similarly (Daems, 2014, p.). Although RPDR’s reality TV format guarantees that

this emotional turmoil is shown to create drama as the genre profits off

exploiting human emotion (Murray and Ouelette, p. 5), it does not negate the

representation and comfort being given to marginalised groups who may be able

to relate to the contestants of RPDR and their stories (Daems, 2014, p.).

There is also the infusion of queer culture throughout the show which creates

visibility and awareness for marginalised communities and culture in a normative

space - the reality TV genre. The show constantly references staples of American

LGBT culture – in addition to the Stonewall challenge of season 4, every season

features a mini-challenge involving the ‘reading’9 of other contestants. This is

always introduced by RuPaul thusly: “In the grand tradition of Paris Is Burning,

the library is open. Because reading is what? Fundamental.” (Logo TV, 2009 - 9 ‘Reading’ is a tradition of drag culture seen in Paris Is Burning, which involves the witty criticism/insulting of one’s peers in their appearance or performance.

25

present). This both names the film, which has cult status in popular culture today,

and makes multiple references to the characters in it. Also, by referencing Paris

is Burning as the source of this tradition, RPDR is properly crediting the minority

communities who are the source of most of what constitutes gay and drag culture

in America today, although they are so rarely acknowledged for it. Further

references to Paris is Burning and the ball culture that it represents happen in

every episode, including the announcement of the runway theme as “Category is

______ realness/extravaganza”, which is a phrase used frequently in the white

gay community without acknowledgement that its origins lie in the racial

minority based drag balls of underground New York. Also in seasons 4-7, the

final runway challenge has literally been a ‘ball’ – with themes “Money Ball”

(where the garments had to be made from fake money), “Glitter Ball” (made

using jewels and jewel tones), and “Bitch Ball” (inspired by a dog which they

then had to walk the runway with). These challenges involve putting together

three different looks, all of which at least make reference to the theme and the

final look being a literal interpretation of it, and then walking the runway and

performing a group lip-sync number. This challenge is designed to exactly

emulate the proceedings of the drag balls which are the foundation of drag

culture, and feature heavily in Paris is Burning. The ways in which RPDR pays

tribute to queer culture and history is part of what makes RPDR singular in the

mainstream media, as show created by LGBT people, to tell the stories of LGBT

people.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the operation of RPDR as a reality television format and

representation of the LGBT community is informed by both the reality television

predecessors for the show (ANTM and Queer Eye), and the rise of transgender

visibility in the mainstream media which preceded the released of RPDR.

Drawing from its predecessors, RPDR uses privileging of LGBT culture and

stories to create an unprecedented level of visibility for the LGBT community in

the mainstream media. This representation, however, is affected by the image of

RuPaul as the star of RPDR, whose construction and performance of racialised

femininity privileges white beauty. Although RuPaul’s role as an LGBT content

creator and African American star is progressive, her performance of elements of

26

white femininity compromises the subversive potential of her show. Despite this,

other elements of the show succeed in supporting LGBT interests in the context

of a heteropatriarchal mainstream.

27

CHAPTER TWO “Gentlemen, Start Your Engines. And May the Best

(White?) Woman Win”: the construction and performance

of racialised gender

Having established the valuable representation afforded to the LGBT community

and queer culture by RPDR as a reality television format in mainstream media, I

will now analyse the drag performers and performances on the show. Building

upon my earlier analysis of RuPaul, I will conduct an intersectional analysis of

the construction and performance of racialised gender featured on RPDR seasons

4-7. This chapter analyses some of the individual contestants of RPDR and their

embodiment of racialised gender.1 I will also discuss how racialised gender is

treated throughout different aspects of the show, and examine the portrayal of the

practice of drag, in both the challenges and the workroom. In doing so, I will

show that RPDR privileges white femininity in its portrayal of racialised gender.

I will also demonstrate how RPDR is valuable in its exposure of the constructed

nature of heterosexual binary understandings of gender, and its promotion of a

more fluid understanding of gender identity and expression.

THE PRACTICE OF DRAG

Having examined the reality television format of RPDR in the first chapter, I will

now analyse the practice and performance of drag featured on the show. To do

this, I will first establish how drag operates. Drag is defined generally as the

theatrical embodiment of gender for the purposes of entertainment – the word

originally meant “dressed up as a girl” (Escudero-Alias, 2008, p. 61), but the

reality of drag performance today extends beyond cis-men dressed as women 1 I would like to make note that, as a white-presenting person, I acknowledge that it is not my place to criticise the embodiment and identity of racial minorities. This thesis is an analysis and critique of the specific construction of racialised gender and femininity through the practise of drag, with no intention of asserting judgement over how people of colour identify or perform their own racial or ethnic identity.

28

(Aviance, 2014). With its origins in the intersection of camp theatrical humour

and the “negotiation of cross-gendered identification” (Butler, 1993a, p. 314),

drag is often politicised. Bell Hooks (2012) describes how drag was born from a

context where “the notion of subjectivity was challenged” (p. 145) – it explores

the notion of constructed and changing identity. Combining elements of camp

with an understanding of gender and performance, drag possesses the ability to

challenge existing power structures through camp theatricality and interaction

with notions of gender. Judith Butler (1993) credits drag artists and performers as

being at the forefront of queer politics and movements throughout history – the

hyperbolic and theatrical nature of drag is easily politicised (p. 23). By exposing

the constructed nature of racialised gender, drag performance allows for the

critical examination of identity. In the words of RuPaul, “Drag mocks identity”

(RuPaul and Piane, 2014a). RPDR has created a unique platform for drag to be

visible and accessible on an unprecedented scale. As outlined in Chapter One,

the mainstream success of RPDR, combined with the show’s reality television

format, afford the performance and performers of drag featured an exclusive

level of visibility. This chapter aims to examine the portrayal, performance, and

performers of drag in RPDR, and in doing so, determine the subversive potential

of the show in challenging existing power structures through the performance of

drag.

DRAG SCHOLARSHIP

The theorists I will engage with in this chapter have contributed significantly to

the academic analysis of drag performance and performers. Using their writing

as a theoretical framework for my own analysis, I hope to achieve an

intersectional and well-rounded investigation of the subversive potential of

RPDR.

Butler’s (1991) concept of gender performativity is the idea that gender is

constructed and enacted through the compulsory and everyday repetition of

gender practices. She discusses how the literal construction of gender involved in

a drag performance is demonstrative of the way in which “genders are

appropriated, theatricalised, worn, and done.” (1993a, p. 313). She argues that

the showcasing of gender as imitative and impersonalised destabilises

29

heterosexual identity by “expos[ing] heterosexuality as an incessant and

panicked imitation of its own naturalised idealisation” (Butler, 1993a, 314).

Butler’s (1991) concept of gender performativity is separate to the gender

performance of drag, but she argues that drag can potentially expose the

performative nature of gender.

In addition to Butler’s work, I will also employ theories of intersectional

feminism. Intersectionality, a term coined by feminist writer Kimberle Crenshaw

(1991), involves analysing how different forms of oppression intersect to create

different experiences of marginalisation. This idea of intersecting areas of

privilege or oppression is crucial to a nuanced understanding of racial, sexual,

and gendered experiences and portrayals. Bell Hooks (2012) uses this theory of

intersectionality in her analysis of Paris Is Burning. Hooks contends that,

although the practice of drag emerged from the desire to subvert gender norms

and explore the construction of identity, that too often the subversive power of

drag is undermined by a reliance on white supremacist and classist

understandings of feminine beauty and womanhood (2012, p. 145-7). She argues

that the performers demonstrate a form of drag which is weighed down by a

fascination with a capitalist, white supremacist culture, preventing any real

subversion from taking place. The result being that it reinforces existing norms

rather than destabilizing them (Hooks, 2012, p. 148). While Hooks’ analysis is

specific to the content of Paris Is Burning, elements of her critique apply to the

challenges undertaken on RPDR, which I will use in my own analysis of the

practice and performance of drag on the show. In addition to the work of Hooks

(2012), and building on Crenshaw’s (1991) theory of intersectionality, I will

consult the work of Patricia Hill Collins (2004) on the performance and portrayal

of black femininity in the media, as well as Yarbrough and Bennett’s (2000)

work identifying the stereotypes of black femininity portrayed in the mainstream

media. My own analysis will attempt to engage each of these theorists, as well as

the existing scholarship on RPDR specifically, to provide an analysis of the

show’s representation of race, class, and gender, and its interaction with existing

power structures.

30

RU GIRLS: THE CONTESTANTS I will here analyse the drag performances and personae of individual contestants

featured throughout seasons 4-7 of RPDR. I will discuss specifically their

construction and performance of racialised gender, as well as how they are

judged and portrayed within the show, and how this affects the show’s

subversive potential. I will do this to demonstrate how RPDR both privileges

white femininity and explores non-binary understandings of gender expression.

Season 4 (2012) of RPDR featured the highest number of non-white contestants

of the four seasons I am discussing. Of the 13 contestants who competed in

season 4, four of them were white, three were Puerto Rican, four were African-

American, one was mixed-race Latino and white American, and one was

Filipino-American. Season 5 (2013) featured seven white contestants, one Puerto

Rican contestant, two Latino/Hispanic American contestants, two African-

American, and one Filipino-American. Season 6 (2014) was 50% White, with

seven of the fourteen contestants featured white American, two African-

American, one Puerto Rican, one Japanese-American, and three Latino/white

American. Season 7 (2015), the most recent season, featured the first ever all

white top three, as well as a majority white group of contestants: 10 white

contestants, 3 black contestants, and one Puerto Rican contestant. Discernable

from this is the ever-increasing percentage of white contestants compared to non-

white, having gone from four white contestants in a group of 13, to 10 white

contestants in a group of 14 across just four seasons (2012-2015). Given that the

contestants featured on the show are chosen from a pool of thousands of drag

queens across America, the ever-increasing percentage of white contestants

would seem indicative of a prioritisation of whiteness in the show. The show’s

rise in popularity correlates with this trend, the implication being that whiteness

comes with mainstream success. This is evident in not just the racial make up of

the contestants, but also in who succeeds on the show. In earlier seasons (1-3),

the top remaining queens were majority if not all non-white queens, and the

winners were all people of colour. However, recent seasons (4-7) have featured

mostly white top-three groups (all white in the case of season 7), with 3 of the

four winners also being white.

31

Violet Chachki, the winner of the seventh season

of RPDR, embodies a particular brand of white

femininity. One of the youngest contestants,2

Violet’s drag aesthetic is informed both by her

whiteness and her gender identity. Openly

identified as genderfluid,3 the way that Violet

constructs her drag persona goes some way

towards challenging a heterosexualised binary

understanding of gender. Her drag persona

combines elements of burlesque, androgyny, and

the hyper-feminine. During the first runway

challenge of the season, the contestants were

asked to create a ‘nude illusion’ look. While the

other contestants wore nude body suits with

breasts painted on, or leotards over

corsets, Violet walked the runway in

nothing but a necklace and stiletto heels

(see figure 2.1). During the runway

challenge of episode 3, Violet wore a pink

1950s style prom dress, with a perfectly

groomed auburn beard to match her wig

(see figure 2.2). For her performance

during the live finale of season 7, Violet

stripped down to nothing but underwear,

nipple tassles, and a feather boa (see

figure 2.3) (Logo TV, 2015). By

emulating hyperfemininity in her

2 Violet was just 22 at the time of filming. 3 Genderfluid is a term used to describe a person whose gender identity or expression moves fluidly between different genders (GLAAD, 2011).

Figure 2.1 Violet’s nude illusion runway look.

Figure 2.2 Violet’s ‘bearded’ runway look

32

Figure 2.3 Violet Chachki’s outfit for her live performance during the finale episode of season 7.

performances but refusing to cover up or alter her natural ‘male’ figure, Violet’s

drag performance challenges strict binary understandings of what makes a

‘woman’.

Hooks (2012) argues that, for racial minorities to perform upper class white

femininity is not subversive, but reinforces the idea

that white culture is more desirable (p.147). Similar

to RuPaul herself, many of the black contestants on

RPDR perform at least some elements of this

femininity criticised by Hooks. For example, Coco

Montrese of season 5. Coco’s drag persona is self-

described as “old Hollywood, white woman fish”4 –

she evokes old Hollywood glamour, often wearing

long gowns and perfectly styled hair (Logo TV,

2013) (see figure 2.4). She also, much like RuPaul,

adheres to a form of respectability politics in order to

‘legitimise’ herself. Collins (2004) describes this as

“find[ing] a way to become Black ‘ladies’ by

avoiding… working-class traps” (p. 139).

4 “Fish” is a term used within the drag community, referring to a kind of drag performance or performer which is hyper feminine and convincingly female.

Figure 2.4 Coco Montrese in her usual ‘glamour

drag’

33

The only time that Coco engages in any way with elements of working-class

black femininity is during the comedy challenge of episode 6, “RuPaul Roast”.

The main challenge of this episode required the contestants to perform a stand-up

comedy routine about RuPaul (Logo TV, 2013). Coco Montrese, the last

remaining black contestant, performs her

stand up routine as a ‘character’ different

to her usual drag persona. She introduces

herself by saying: “I’m Ru good cousin

from the Brewster projects.” (Logo TV,

2013). The character she is playing has

large hair, large jewellery, and is large and

aggressive in her movements and speech

(see figure 2.5). When insulted during

another contestant’s stand up routine,

Coco pretends to remove her earrings as if

to imply that she will physically fight

the other contestant. The judges, who

applaud her use of comedy and

character, praise her performance and she ultimately wins the challenge (Logo

TV, 2013). However, Coco’s performance evokes stereotypes of working-class

black women, which she only ever engages with to create comedy, never with

seriousness. Working class black women, Collins argues, are stereotypically

portrayed in the mainstream media as “aggressive, loud, rude, and pushy” and

often for comedy (p. 123). Coco Montrese’s performance in this challenge

embodies entirely these qualities identified by Collins. Bell Hooks argues that

the potential for subversion in drag performance lies in men performing

femininity with sincerity and seriousness (p. 146). She condemns the use of

black womanhood as a comedic device by drag performers as disempowering,

arguing that it perpetuates sexist and racist ideas about black women (p. 146).

Yarbrough and Bennett (2000) similarly argue that the use of negative

stereotypes of working-class black women serve only to sustain the exploitation

and subjugation of black women (p. 654).

Figure 2.5 Coco’s performance during the RuPaul Roast

34

It is also not uncommon for the white contestants of RPDR to attempt to emulate

the language and culture of minority groups

(such as black women) in order to make their

drag ‘edgier’ or more interesting. This is

especially prevalent among younger drag queens,

as they seek to distance themselves from what

they see as ‘old school’ pageant drag.5 An

example of this is the contestant Laganja

Estranja, from season six of RPDR. Laganja tries

very hard to evoke aesthetics of a ‘ghetto’

persona in her drag – she uses language heavily

informed by AAVE,6 dresses in ‘street style’

clothing, and wears large chains and jewellery

(see figure 2.6). This is a form of cultural

appropriation – for Laganja, as a white contestant, to assume aesthetics of

‘ghetto’ culture as accessories when she is neither black nor working-class is

problematic. Hooks (2012) describes this kind of appropriation as a

“commodification of blackness” (p. 152). Laganja is performing a caricature of

blackness, utilising a culture that is not hers for aesthetic purposes.

This cultural appropriation of Laganja’s performance, and the use of damaging

racial stereotypes and respectability politics by Coco Montrese are demonstrative

of how RPDR can be problematic in its treatment of non-white femininities. The

drag performance of Violet Chachki (who eventually won), however, shows how

RPDR does not rely on strict binary definitions of gender, and instead promotes a

more fluid understanding of gender expression and identity.

5 ‘Pageant’ drag is a specific drag aesthetic practiced by those who compete in drag queen pageants (such as Miss Gay America), with a strict definition of glamour. Many younger drag queens see this as outdated or boring, and try to move drastically away from this style of drag. 6 AAVE stands for ‘African-American Vernacular English, and alludes to a specific dialect spoken popularly by urban, working-class Black communities in America (Patrick, 2006, p. 334).

Figure 2.6 Laganja’s typical drag aesthetic

35

THE WORKROOM

Figure 2.7 Contestants removing their drag in the workroom.

The drag performances and performers of RPDR are showcased within the show

in the challenges presented to the contestants, the to-camera interviews with the

contestants out of drag, and the workroom interactions between contestants as

they apply and remove their drag. The nature of the reality television format is

such that the show is designed to reveal the process of drag and the

people/characters behind it – throughout each episode we see the contestants

completely out of drag, dressed fully in their drag, and at just about every stage

in-between. This perspective provided by RPDR is unique – live drag

performances do not offer this kind of ‘behind the scenes’ look into the process

of drag and the mentalities and personalities behind it (Marcel, 2014, p. 15). As a

result, RPDR offers a view of drag and the process of literally constructing

gender (or at least indicators thereof) to a mainstream audience. In accordance

with the theories of Butler (1993a), therein lies the potential for RPDR to provide

subversive ideas about gender which may challenge a heterosexist binary

understanding of it. Butler identifies drag as allegorising some of the ways in

which gender is performed or ‘worn’ – showing how gender is “a kind of

impersonation and approximation” (p. 313). RPDR, combining the subject of

drag performance with the reality television format, amplifies drag’s ability to

expose the enacted nature of gender by showing a literal demonstration of mostly

male-identifying contestants physically transforming into their female drag

personas. This happens every episode as we see footage of the contestants

preparing to walk the runway for the judges, and as such the audience is allowed

36

Figure 2.8 The contestants doing makeup in the workroom.

a glimpse into the process of ‘becoming a woman’ (see figures 2.7 and 2.8). The

extensive application of makeup, which for some contestants takes over an hour,

the styling and applying of intricate and extravagant wigs, the padding of hips

and chests under layers of firmwear, the cinching of waists, and finally stepping

into costumes and outrageously high heels. Seeing this process undertaken by

contestants who mostly are identified male in their daily lives, creates a sense of

hyperbole which allows for the consideration of just how much work is involved

in conforming to heterosexist understandings of gender for women. Sontag

(1966) argues that camp uses the hyperbolic enactment of mundane things to

create spectacle (p. 3-4), a spectacle which Butler (1993) considers potentially

able to expose the farcical nature of compulsory heterosexualised gender

performances. Jim Daems notes the tendency of RPDR to show and treat gender

as ‘situational’ as one of its most subversive qualities (2014, p. 9) – the footage

of the contestants in the workroom forms part of this treatment.

This is further demonstrated in the language used by RuPaul to address the

contestants throughout each episode: “Gentlemen, start your engines. And may

the best woman win!” (Logo TV, 2009 - present). RPDR does not shy away from

the notion that one person can comfortably and successfully inhabit multiple

genders – this is after all the entire premise of the practice of drag. Further, as

Marcel (2014) notes, the dichotomy of seeing the contestants in and out of drag

creates a visual tension that underscores the show’s treatment of gender as

changing and various (p. 19). RPDR operates under the premise that one person

37

is capable (and likely) to have an affinity for genders beyond that which they

were assigned at birth, or at least for the behaviours and indicators of other

genders. The show’s commitment to displaying this, through showcasing the

contestants in all stages of their drag and the use of a variety of pronouns, works

towards overcoming the socially constructed and enforced binaries that separate

‘men’ and ‘women’. As Butler (1993) contends, the subversive potential of drag

lies in its ability to allegorise the heterosexual melancholy – to expose the

fragility and inefficacy of a binary understanding of gender (p. 25). It also

exposes for the audience to see, the way in which gender can literally be

‘learned’ – the contestants on the show have spent their lives perfecting the

practice of drag, and we see them going through the motions of ‘becoming’

women in the workroom. With seeming ease they temporarily adopt physical and

visual characteristics of womanhood, characteristics which women exhibit as

part of their female gender identity.

For straight female viewers, which make up a considerable part of RPDR’s

audience (Shepherd, 2015), this can be both confronting and liberating to behold.

Through the process of compulsory repetition of gender practices and

performance, what Butler (1990) identifies as gender performativity, women

(especially heterosexual women) have learned to inhabit the female gender in a

particular way. Seeing the process of femininity denaturalized by the contestants

convincingly and consciously adopting these gendered practices and

characteristics (characteristics that straight women have been forced to learn in

order to make sense of themselves in a society underscored by a heterosexual

gender binary) can expose the enacted and learned nature of gender. This idea is

encapsulated in the lyrics to RuPaul’s latest single, which features as the

soundtrack for the show’s seventh season: “We’re all born naked and the rest is

drag.” (RuPaul and Piane, 2014). The way in which the process of ‘becoming a

woman’ is denaturalised and displayed during the workroom scenes is

demonstrative of how RPDR goes some way towards exposing the constructed

and performative nature of heterosexualised binary genders.

38

“CATEGORY IS…”: RUPAUL’S DRAG BALLS

The ‘Drag Ball’ challenges, described earlier in chapter one, are an endeavour to

emulate the drag balls featured in Paris Is Burning, which have been a

cornerstone of drag counterculture in America. They attempt to pay homage both

to the counterculture of racial minorities, and to drag and LGBT culture. The

Drag Ball is an event, occurring during each season’s penultimate episode, in

which the remaining four or five contestants are tasked with designing and

modeling three signature looks based on themes given to them by RuPaul at the

beginning of the episode. Their runway performance involves not only

showcasing their outfits, but also embodying the characters of each category. In

the drag ball of season 6, “Glitter Ball”, the remaining contestants (Courtney Act,

Adore Delano, Ben De Le Crème, Darriene Lake, and Bianca Del Rio) are tasked

with creating an outfit inspired by jewels (Logo TV, 2014). They are also

required to assemble looks for two additional categories, “Banjee Girl” (see

figure 2.9) and “Platinum Card Executive Realness”, and then walk the runway

and display all three outfits. The first category, “Banjee Girl”, is a direct

reference to the counterculture of minority communities. ‘Banjee’ is a term used

to describe a certain aesthetic, often conflated with ‘ghetto’, embodied by some

working-class black and Latino women beginning in the 1980s. Of the five

contestants competing in this challenge, three of them are white,7 and as such

their contributions to this category are derivative at best. Their attempts, as white

gay men, at emulating the counterculture the women of racial minorities are

clumsy and stereotypical. Ben De Le Crème is criticized by the judges for taking

her embodiment of the banjee character too far, and Darriene and Courtney are

accused of missing the point all together. While they are not explicitly criticized

for disrespecting or appropriating a culture that is not theirs, it is worth noting

that the White contestants are criticised for a lack of understanding and

authenticity in their banjee characterisations, whereas the two Hispanic

contestants are not.8 Both queens were praised for their ‘banjee’ looks, especially

7 Ben De La Crème, Darriene Lake, and Courtney Act (who is in fact White Australian). 8 I refer here to Bianca Del Rio, who is of Honduran and Cuban origins, and Adore Delano of mixed Mexican/White American heritage.

39

Figure 2.9 The contestants’ ‘Banjee Girl’ looks (from left to right): Adore Delano, Courtney Act, Ben De La Crème, Bianca Del Rio, Darriene Lake.

Adore who was credited with truly embodying the character of the banjee girl in

a believable way (Logo TV, 2014).9

The next category, “Platinum Card Executive Realness” (Logo TV, 2014),

moves away from counterculture towards classist, white standards of feminine

beauty. These are the same standards identified by Bell Hooks (2012) in her

analysis of Paris Is Burning.10 She describes how the performers of PIB idolize

and emulate the kind of femininity associated with wealthy White women (p.

147). The “Platinum Card Executive Realness” category of the “Glitter Ball”

involves dressing like a rich, beautiful businesswoman. Although it lacks the

‘kept woman’ quality of the drag criticised by Hooks (2012, p. 148), instead

favouring the successful businesswoman character, this category (which features

in every season’s drag ball with the exception of season 7) produces drag

performances which uphold the same values of wealth and White beauty

identified by Hooks. This is in keeping with the nature of drag balls and culture

as the were seen in Paris Is Burning, which Hooks argues demonstrate a form of

drag weighed down by a fascination with a capitalist, white supremacist culture,

9 Adore is the only contestant who comes from the kind of background where ‘banjee’ culture would have an organic presence. She grew up in Azusa, California (an city in LA County with a considerable Latino/Hispanic community which makes up 67.6% of its population as of 2010). 10 For Paris Is Burning, the acronym PIB will be used hereafter.

40

the trappings of which prevent any real subversion from taking place (p. 149).

This means that the formation of gender and beauty is such that it reinforces

existing norms rather than destabilising them. The focus is on rich white

womanhood– the potential for subversion in the warping of gender is

undermined by the reinforcement of existing norms of race and class. The

privileging of this kind of white femininity, in combination with the cultural

appropriation employed by some white contestants, is part of the problematic

representation of racialised gender on RPDR.

QUEEN EYE FOR THE STRAIGHT GUY: THE RPDR MAKEOVER

After demonstrating how the representation of racialised gender on RPDR can be

problematic, I will now examine how the makeover challenges in RPDR

challenge binary gender roles and promote a more fluid and open-minded

understanding of gender expression. Each season of RPDR (with the exception of

the most recent season 7), features a ‘makeover episode’ in which the remaining

contestants are assigned companions to give a full drag makeover, usually with a

theme (examples of themes have included “Baby-Bump Eleganza”, and

“Blushing Brides”).11 This involves taking a group of people who have never

experienced drag and putting them through the process of constructing and

enacting femininity in a flurry of high heels, makeup, wigs, corsetry, and

‘women’s’ clothing. As I discussed in Chapter One, RPDR features this reality

television makeover format originally made famous by Queer Eye for the

Straight Guy. On Queer Eye, this involved using the values and skills of a group

of homosexual men to ‘improve’ a straight man and make him a more palatable

member of society. As Sender (2005) notes, one of the objections to Queer Eye

was the literal ‘use’ of gay men for the material benefit of straight men – the Fab

Five employ their collective gay expertise to help their subject become a “better

heterosexual” (p. 1-2). The power still remains with the heterosexual subject –

the Fab Five are featured in the straight protagonist’s journey to self-

improvement, used briefly when they are needed and then relegated to the

11 The “Baby-Bump Eleganza” theme of season 4’s makeover episode involved incorporating a pregnant belly into the look, and the “Blushing Bride” theme of season 6’s makeover episode involved transforming grooms into brides for a wedding ceremony officiated by RuPaul herself.

41

Figure 2.10 The group of straight dads ready to be made over by their drag queen partners.

sidelines for the “big reveal” (Kelly, 2003). RPDR’s version of the makeover

format is not so guilty of this prioritization of heterosexual stories. Rather than

exhibiting stereotypical gay men for the dual purpose of comedy and helping a

straight man, RPDR puts straight men on display for the amusement of its

audience and contestants. Straight men are often the subjects of the makeover

episodes, and they are taken on a journey of self-improvement from

hypermasculine ‘dudes’ to more open-minded ‘ladies’ through the process of

drag under the guidance of the contestants. However throughout this process, the

focus and sympathy remains firmly with the contestants themselves – the show is

about them and their lives, and the straight men are there to help tell the

contestants’ stories. Butler (1993) credits the practice of drag with exploring the

signification of gender in such a way that it exposes the compulsory and

performed nature of heterosexuality (and the binary genders through which

heterosexuality operates) (p. 26-27). The makeover challenges explore this idea –

bringing into question why these (straight) men have never considered feminine

characteristics to be a part of their identity and why they are initially so

confronted by the prospect of enacting elements of a gender they consider

‘beneath’ them. Therein lies some of the subversive potential of RPDR – in

challenging traditional heterosexual embodiments of gender and placing value in

the ability to inhabit gendered characteristics outside of those which we are

assigned by heteronormative power structures.

42

For example in season 4, the makeover challenge involved taking straight

fathers, and putting them in full female drag complete with a visible baby bump

– referred to as “Baby Bump Eleganza” (Logo TV, 2012). They also have to

perform a dance in the style of a striptease on the runway with their allocated

contestant. These straight men are quite literally put on display for the

amusement of the audience - hypermasculine ‘everyday’ men whose gender roles

are clearly defined and making them take on not only feminine characteristics,

but the traditionally assigned roles of the ‘woman’ within a heterosexualised

gender binary - the mother and the sex object (Dubriwny, 2012, p. 171). While

they are volunteers in this process, the straight dads are confronted by the

difficult nature of performing femininity. Much of the episode’s comedy

revolves around the failures of these men to walk in high heels, their cries of pain

and frustration intercut with disdainful looks and laughter from the contestants.

The contrast of the more masculine straight men with the contestants themselves

is striking – it is the first time in the season that we encounter such a hyperbolic

and heteronormative embodiment of male gender (see figure 2.10). Within the

context of the challenge, this level of masculinity is looked down upon as

‘unpolished’ and amateur. Much of the discomfort and inadequacy of the straight

men trying to take on hyperfeminine characteristics is played for comedy, with

the ‘narrative’ of the episode involving their overcoming strict masculine ideas

and embracing a feminine gender expression, even if only for the duration of the

challenge. This works in some ways to undermine the fragile and prescribed

nature of masculinity in the context of a heteronormative understanding of

gender – the straight dads are made ‘better’ by their embracing feminine

qualities. This point is further emphasised in interactions between the contestants

and the straight men throughout the episode. Phi Phi O’Hara, the youngest

contestant remaining on the season, is paired up with straight dad Chris.

Throughout the course of the episode, the contestants ask whether the straight

dads would be comfortable with their children being LGBT. When Chris answers

with a resounding yes, Phi Phi becomes emotional and explains that her own

father disapproved violently of her sexuality and practicing drag, eventually

abusing her so badly that she left home (Logo TV, 2012). This leads to a

significant bond developing between Chris and Phi Phi, as Chris expresses his

distress at the thought that a parent could mistreat their child for being gay.

43

Chris’ acceptance of LGBT people and lifestyles, demonstrated both in his

conversation with Phi Phi and his enthusiastic approach to cross-dressing

(despite his obvious masculine heterosexuality) elevates him in the esteem of

both the contestants and the audience. However he is playing a role in Phi Phi’s

story, not the other way around. This moment is about Phi Phi finding solace in

Chris’ open-mindedness, and being able to gain some closure on her turbulent

relationship with her own father. Despite his fatherly demeanor, Chris is still Phi

Phi’s student within the context of the challenge – she teaches him the practice of

drag, and quite literally constructs the character of GiGi O’Hara (Chris’ drag

persona for the challenge) from Chris. Phi Phi is in total control – she uses Chris

to help her deal with a traumatic past, and eventually win the challenge (Logo

TV, 2012).

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the relationship that RPDR has with existing power structures is a

complex one. The show’s portrayal of the construction and enactment of

racialised gender is problematic – often making use of damaging racial

stereotypes, appropriation of elements of minority cultures by white performers,

and respectability politics. However, the show also exposes the constructed and

binary nature of heterosexual gender roles, and in doing so promotes a more fluid

and non-binary understanding of gender expression, identity, and performance.

44

CHAPTER THREE “Everybody Say Love”: The Impact of RuPaul’s Drag

Race

The first chapter of this thesis demonstrated how RPDR’s reality television

format operates to provide flawed but valuable representation to marginalised

groups in the mainstream media, and how it is part of a rise of transgender

visibility. The second chapter then provided an intersectional analysis of the drag

performances and performers of RPDR. It concluded that the show’s

representation of racialised gender is problematic, but that it also challenges

binary understandings of gender and engages with feminine empowerment.

Building upon these findings, this chapter will explore how the feminist and

LGBT communities engage with RPDR, and in doing so demonstrate the positive

impact that the show has had for these communities. Engaging with theories of

feminism, fandom, queer social media, and transgender studies, I will examine

the online journalistic and fan responses to RPDR to show the positive impact of

the visibility and empowerment it provides.

FRAMING FEMINIST PERSPECTIVES ON TRANSGENDER STUDIES

For this chapter I will use theories of transgender studies and feminism in my

analysis of the impact of RPDR. I will show how RPDR can be used to disprove

negative understandings of femininity and transgenderism, and how it can be

empowering for LGBT and feminist groups.

One of the most vocal opponents to transgender rights is a movement within

radical feminism referred to as “Trans Exclusive Radical Feminism” (Williams,

2013), or TERF. The basic principle of TERF is an understanding of womanhood

as defined by biology, and the exclusion of transgender women from feminist

spaces based on their biology. Sheila Jeffreys (1997) argues that transgender

women are problematic and damaging to feminist causes as their embodiment of

gender enforces rather than subverts a binary understanding of womanhood.

45

Jeffreys argues that transgender women rely solely on traditional understandings

of femininity to define their own womanhood, and that this works directly

against feminist interests because it relies on an understanding of gender roles

(1997, p. 57-58). This ties into her characterisation of femininity as toxic and

representative of a hostage/captor relationship between women and men (p. 64).

She argues that women perform femininity, something enforced to subjugate

women into strict gender roles, in order to please men (p. 64-65). Jeffreys asserts

that, for ‘men’ to perform femininity (she refers her to both drag queens and

transgender women) is insulting to women who are ‘forced’ to embody it (p. 65).

Her arguments leave little room for the possibility that women may enjoy

femininity or choose to embody it for reasons other than being in thrall to the

patriarchy. They also deliberately ignore the personhood and identities of

transgender women, and attempt to show their interests as directly opposing

those of ‘real’ women. I will show how RPDR and its thriving female fan base

challenge this idea that transgender women (including drag queens) and

cisgender women are naturally at odds with one another, and that the show

actively promotes feminine empowerment. I will use the journalistic response

and testimonies from fans to establish this.

The feminist response to TERF has been significant, with a growing movement

of feminist transgender and cisgender women speaking out against TERF and

supporting the inclusion of transgender interests in feminist discourse. Judith

Butler (2014) has spoken out again TERF policy, both its violent exclusion of

transgender women and its characterisation of femininity as toxic and

symptomatic of “Stockholm Syndrome” (Jeffreys, 1997, p. 64). In opposition to

Jeffrey’s call for the eradication of gender, Butler asserts that:

“Gender can be very important to us, and some people really love the

gender that they have claimed for themselves. If gender is eradicated, so

too is an important domain of pleasure for many people… I think we

have to accept a wide variety of positions on gender. Some want to be

gender-free, but others want to be free really to be a gender that is crucial

to who they are” (2014).

Butler argues that people can find empowerment and selfhood in the embodiment

and performance of the gender of their choice, and that it should not be the role

46

of feminists to police the gender expression and identity of individuals,

especially not in relation to their biology. This idea is read in RPDR by the

women who watch it, and directly challenges the ideas of TERF. I will

demonstrate this by showing the sense of empowerment from femininity and

gender performance in the online responses to RPDR. I believe that RPDR, in its

exposure of the construction of gender and promotion of empowerment through

femininity, challenges directly biological determinist understandings of gender,

as well as the idea that performing femininity is demeaning and reinforces

patriarchal power. To prove how the representation provided by RPDR

empowers cis-women and the LGBT community, I now will examine the online

fan communities and journalistic responses to the show. I will show how the

audience reactions debunk the assertions of TERF by supporting transgender

women and feminine empowerment.

TRANSGENDER RESPONSE TO RPDR

As the Internet has become a space for LGBT self-representation and activism

(Alexander, 2002, p.1), there is an ever-expanding online transgender community

who use the Internet as a database for trans resources, and a forum for discussion

of trans issues. RPDR is often a topic of this discussion, which takes place on

LGBT blogs and news sites, such as Advocate or HuffPost Gay Voices (the

LGBT interest section of the Huffington Post).

RPDR’s relationship with transgender issues is complex, and an understanding of

it depends on how one defines ‘transgender’. As established in my introduction,

‘transgender’ is an umbrella term including anyone whose gender expression or

identity differs from that which they were assigned at birth (GLAAD, 2011).

This includes drag queens, and people who identify as genderfluid (whose

identity/expression moves fluidly between different genders). For transgender

women and activists like Calpernia Addams and Andrea James, this definition is

acceptable. As Addams (2014) wrote for the HuffPost, many transgender women

work as drag performers during their lives. Obviously there is a clear distinction

to be made between transgender women (women who are assigned male at birth

but live and identify as female) and cis-men who perform drag. But the

characterisation of all drag performers as ‘cisgender men dressed as women’ is

47

inaccurate (Aviance, 2014). Writing for HuffPost, Aviance (2014) writes that

gender on RPDR is portrayed, through the practice and performance of drag, as

non-normative and changeable. RPDR makes efforts to move away from strict

binary genders and instead show the construction, performance, and fluidity of

gender expression (Aviance, 2014). The way that gender is played with and

performed on RPDR is exemplary of Butler’s (2014) anti-TERF argument that

experimenting with gender expression and having control over ones gender

identity can be empowering.

The enthusiastic response to the show from high profile trans activists like

Addams (2014), Cayne (Del Mar, 2014), and James (2014) is evidence of the

positive impact of the representation provided by RPDR through invoking this

concept of gender expression and identity. Candis Cayne, a transgender celebrity

and activist, lauds RPDR for its contributions to transgender rights and visibility

(Del Mar, 2014). Trans activist Andrea James (2014), writing for LGBT

magazine Queerty, notes that the amount of visibility and positive representation

afforded to transgender stories and issues by RPDR is unprecedented in the

mainstream media. RPDR provides representation for the trans community

through featuring trans figures and discussion of trans issues. Examples of this

include the appearance of transgender icons like Chaz Bono, Lady Miss J, and

Candis Cayne on the show (Logo TV, 2014; 2015). Chaz Bono, whose ties to the

LGBT community include both being transgender and being the son of gay icon

Cher, spoke candidly about his transition and his activism on the show (Logo

TV, 2014). Two of the most recent winners, Violet Chachki (season 7) and Jinkx

Monsoon (season 5) are also openly genderfluid, and have both spoken openly

about their identities.1 There have been several transgender contestants on the

show who have gone on to have successful careers as models, including Sonique

(season 1), Carmen Carrera (season 3) and Monica Beverly Hillz (season 5). The

representation of transgender people on RPDR is significant both in its quantity

and in its quality.

1 Jinkx Monsoon: “I don’t really consider myself a man or a woman. I just kind of float in between and that’s how I’ve always felt” (Ford, 2014). Violet identified herself as genderfluid during a podcast interview (GayRadioShow, 2015).

48

The main issue dividing the transgender community over RPDR is the show’s

use of transphobic language. This became a topic of debate after a season six

episode aired in which the slur “shemale” was used repeatedly during the

segment (Logo TV, 2014). Transgender activists, including former contestant

Carmen Carrera, identified this as transphobic and petitioned the show to remove

the segment (Del Mar, 2014). James (2014) acknowledged the inappropriate use

of the slur, noting that she expressed her outrage to Logo TV producers

personally. She went on to praise the network’s response. After vocal opposition

from the transgender community, RPDR producers issued an apology and

removed the segment from future broadcasts, as well as any further use of

transphobic language (James, 2014). Although the initial error was not

insignificant, the immediate response of RPDR producers and Logo TV in

acknowledging and appeasing opposition in the transgender community

demonstrates that the show is conscious of transgender issues.

FEMINIST RESPONSE TO RPDR

The feminist response to RPDR can be read from the articles written by fans and

reviews of the show, hosted on feminist blogs and websites like

TheRadicalNotion, FEM, and xojane. The variety of opinions highlight some of

the issues with RPDR, but the overarching theme of enjoyment and

empowerment is indicative of how RPDR has been received by many women

who watch it. Reactions to RPDR range from comparing the practice of drag to

‘blackface’ (a claim originally made in a facebook post by republican and lesbian

Mary Cheney) (Brovermen, 2015), to women claiming that RPDR taught them

how to love themselves and their femininity (Gordon, 2012). The general

reaction to RPDR amongst feminist journalists and bloggers who have published

articles about the show online is positive – Google searches for “RuPaul’s Drag

Race feminist” and “RuPaul’s Drag Race women” unearth a plethora of articles

written by women who love the show. The opinions expressed by these articles

combat Jeffreys’ (1997) assertions that ‘men’ performing femininity is inherently

insulting and misogynistic. Many of the female viewers, while critical of some of

RPDR’s content, acknowledge its empowering messages for women. Their

testimonies of how RPDR helped them to love and embrace their femininity are

49

demonstrative of Butler’s argument that many people find joy and empowerment

in expressing their femininity.

Ashley Clarke (2014), writing for HuffPost, asserts that although RPDR is

sometimes problematic in its use of language (specifically the words ‘fishy’ and

‘bitch’), she is still a fan because of the overriding messages of self-love and

feminine empowerment throughout the show. Similarly, Julia Ozog (2014)

(writing for social-justice and feminist website TheRadicalNotion) is critical of

the beauty standards held up on the show, but remains positive about RPDR’s

abililty to “fuck with traditional gender performance” (it is also worth noting that

her criticisms are specific to season 5, and the show has improved on many of

the points she takes issue with in the two subsequent seasons). These reactions

are perhaps the most common - criticism underscored with a genuine love for the

show and optimism that it will only improve with each coming season as its

female fans become more vocal.

The most common point of debate amongst feminists about the practice of drag

is whether or not men ‘performing’ womanhood is insulting (note that ‘men

performing women’ is a very narrow definition of drag, but the most commonly

used one in popular culture). Some feminists are disturbed by the image of a

‘man’ wielding the tools of femininity for an often-comedic performance, the

same tools which are used to subjugate women – employing the same criticisms

as Jeffreys (1997). Miz Cracker (2015), a drag performer and feminist writing for

popular culture magazine Slate, argues that drag (note that she speaks generally

about the practice rather than specifically about RPDR) can sometimes be

performed at the expense of women, employing damaging stereotypes or

degrading language (such as ‘bitch’ or ‘slut’). However, she also argues that this

is a specific kind of drag performance, and that it does not universally represent

the intentions of drag performers. She cites a drag performance she witnessed,

which allegorised once domesticated women throwing off the bondage of

patriarchy and becoming independent and powerful. This kind of homage to

female empowerment in drag is what draws many women to it.

50

Bresnahan’s (2014) article for UCLA’s foremost Feminist publication FEM,

gives an unabashedly positive review of RPDR’s value to marginalised groups.

One of the reasons that she gives is the show’s veneration of femininity:

“In a world where femininity is often viewed as a sign of weakness,

inferiority, and subordination, it is a joy to be able to enter a space every

week where it is celebrated and revered in such a creative and unique

way.”

This sentiment is not uncommon amongst female viewers of RPDR, also

appearing in an article by Emily Gordon for women’s interest website xojane.

Gordon (2012) describes how watching RPDR allowed her to reconnect with her

femininity and embrace it without feeling like she was degrading herself. Geier

(2014), writing for the political blog of Washington Monthly, credits RPDR with

exposing the constructed nature of gender and the denaturalisation of femininity.

Showing highly skilled drag queens who have spent years honing their craft and

take up to three hours to ‘transform’ gives insight into just how much work it

takes to be a fully constructed woman, and can be quite cathartic for the show’s

female viewers (Geier, 2014). These testimonies are evidence of how RPDR

positively impacts its female audience through messages of female

empowerment and self-love. They demonstrate Butler’s assertions, in opposition

to TERF arguments, that embodying ones chosen gender is an individual and

empowering choice.

ONLINE FAN COMMUNITIES FOR RPDR

Another way to assess the impact made by RPDR on its audience is to examine

the thriving online fan communities for the show. I will examine the fan presence

on the websites YouTube (video-sharing website) and Facebook (social

networking website).

The Internet and social media have become an integral part of modern queer

community, expression, and self-representation. Gross (2007) notes that LGBT

people are drawn to cyberspace by the possibility of solidarity and community

(p. 7). The Internet gives the ability to locate other people all over the world who

are similarly outcast or uncomfortable in heteropatriarchal society, and for the

formation of online queer communities who are united by common interest or

51

struggle. LGBT can use the Internet to access support, information, resources,

and community which they may not have access to in the ‘real world’ (Gross,

2003, p. 260).

RPDR has generated a significant online fan community, made up of people from

marginalised groups all over the world who are brought together by a love of

RPDR. Jenkins (2006) characterises online fan communities (‘fandoms’) as:

“Expansive self-organising groups focused around the collective

production, debate, and circulation of meanings, interpretations, and

fantasies in response to various artifacts of contemporary popular culture”

(p. 138).

This participatory and celebratory culture described by Jenkins is a significant

part of the RPDR online fandom. Jenkins (1992) also describes the concept of

‘poaching’ – the appropriation of material by fans in order to construct new

meanings. This is also a part of RPDR’s online fan culture, as fans make videos

and artwork to express their adoration for the show and create further resources

for the LGBT community.

YouTube is the largest video-sharing website on the Internet, on which people

can upload and comment on videos. World of Wonder (WOW), who produce

RPDR, maintain a high-quality and regularly updated (with a new video every

few days) YouTube channel called WOWPresents. They currently have 309,000

subscribers (as of October, 2015), and just celebrated 1,000,000 views. The

channel promotes LGBT events (including RuPaul’s DragCon, the first ever

drag-themed convention held in Los Angeles annually) (Nichols, 2015). The

channel also provides behind-the-scenes footage from RPDR and extensive

material featuring previous contestants. This access to exclusive RPDR content

makes WOWPresents a hub for RPDR fans on YouTube. Many of the videos

feature contestants interacting with fans, by answering questions from social

media or even speaking to fans on the phone (‘Ring My Bell’ series). This

interaction, characteristic of participatory culture, helps to break down the

barriers between fans and contestants by providing material and access outside of

the television broadcast. WOWPresents also actively encourages the

participatory culture identified by Jenkins (2006), by maintaining a blog

52

featuring weekly collections of fan created content from YouTube (see figure

3.1). This blog, the WOWPresents Network, shares videos uploaded by fans

featuring RPDR or LGBT themed content, including makeovers, reviews and

reenactments of the show, live performances, and makeup tutorials. This

‘network’ helps to foster and legitimate the participatory fan culture of RPDR

fans on YouTube, as well as providing a

collection of resources for fans and members

of the LGBT community.

Facebook is the largest social networking

website on the Internet, and as such houses

some of the largest collections of RPDR fans.

There are hundreds of RPDR fan pages on

Facebook, many themed based on location,

demographic, or a certain contestant.2 I will

look at the fan-created page “RuPaul’s Drag Race

Family”, one of the largest pages. The page has

2 Some examples include Aussie RPDR Fans, Trixie Mattel Brazil, Team Alaska Thunderfuck, etc.

Figure 3.1 The WOWPresents Network at http://worldofwonder.net/watch-now-wowpresents-network-recap/

Figure 3.2 A post on the page featuring LGBT history.

53

145,404 members (as of October, 2015) from all over the world (including USA,

Australia, New Zealand, Brazil, UK, France, Singapore, Philippines, among

others). The page posts RPDR related content several times a day, including

videos, memes, inspirational quotes, interviews, and photos They also post

articles about LGBT history, events, and pride (see figure 3.2). Fans comment on

posts about the show to share their love/dislike of certain drag queens, and to

speculate the outcome of each episode or who new cast members might be (see

figure 3.3). The page also shares examples of Jenkins’ idea of ‘fan-poaching’, in

the form of fan art (which is posted regularly every Friday) (see figure 3.4).

Weston’s (2013) notion of ‘chosen’ LGBT families is also applicable to the

organisation of the RPDR fan community, as seen on this page. The name

“RuPaul’s Drag Race Family” is

indicative of the nature of the page

and the structure of the fandom for

RPDR. This same use of ‘family’ is a

running theme throughout the show,

and as such influences the nature of

the fandom. Contestants refer to each

other as ‘sisters’, and RuPaul is their

‘mother’ (often addressed as ‘Mother

Ru’) (Logo TV, 2009-present). This

same terminology is used amongst

fans, referring to themselves as a

‘family’, or collectively as ‘sisters’,

even as ‘children’ in relation to

RuPaul or some of the contestants.

Weston (2013) describes this kind of kinship organisation in LGBT communities

as a family of ‘choice’ rather than biology. These ‘chosen’ families are based on

shared experiences, history, and mutual love and support, with “fluid boundaries

and varied membership” (p. 109). RPDR, as a programme promoting LGBT

interests (as established in chapter one), creates a safe space for fans who are

themselves LGBT to come together and celebrate LGBT culture and history.

Figure 3.3 Comments on the page speculating the cast for the next season of

RPDR

54

Figure 3.4 A post by the page featuring artwork drawn by fans of the RPDR drag queens.

Gross (2003) notes that the

Internet is a space where LGBT

youths, who might be outcast or

persecuted in wider society, can

exist and interact with likeminded

people. RPDR further encourages

this, with its promotion of LGBT

interests and representation for

LGBT people in the mainstream

media. The intersection of the

Internet as a safe space and the

representation and solidarity

generated by RPDR has created a

thriving online community of

RPDR fans who can come

together over a love of the show and celebrate their identities in a way that may

not be possible in wider heteropatriarchal society.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the positive impact of RPDR can be read from the interest and

responses it has generated online. Journalistic responses from feminist and

transgender communities alike make criticisms of some the show’s treatment of

women, however vocal factions of both groups testify to the empowerment of the

visibility and representation that RPDR provides. Online fan communities for the

show are brimming with testimonies from LGBT and even straight youths whose

lives are enriched by RPDR, which has provided them with education, visibility,

and empowerment. The online fan community for RPDR creates a sense of

LGBT solidarity and community through a combination of the participatory

culture identified by Jenkins (2006) and the role of the Internet in fostering queer

communities identified by Gross (2003; 2007).

55

CONCLUSION

By conducting an intersectional feminist analysis of RuPaul’s Drag Race, I have

attempted to demonstrate the value of the show in providing empowerment,

visibility, and representation for marginalised groups. The first chapter of this

thesis established the show as a reality television format within the mainstream

media, looking at how it has been informed by its predecessors in the reality

television genre, as well as in the rise of transgender visibility in the media. I also

analysed the star figure of RuPaul, and critiqued her performance of racialised

gender. Ultimately, this chapter demonstrated how RPDR operates as a pastiche

of reality television tropes and queer culture to create unique representation for

the LGBT community in the mainstream media. My second chapter involved an

intersectional analysis of the construction and performance of racialised gender

in RPDR. Using theories of intersectionality, race, and gender, I looked at

individual contestants and events from the show to discuss the representation of

racialised gender. While RPDR is progressive in its portrayal of gender as fluid

and often non-binary, its representation of race and racialised gender is deeply

flawed. By privileging white femininity and featuring cultural appropriation,

RPDR’s ability to create wholly positive and progressive representation for the

LGBT community is compromised. My third and final chapter examined the

online response to RPDR, from feminist and transgender journalists, as well as

the fan community. The journalistic responses from transgender people show the

quantitative and positive representation provided for the community by RPDR,

and the positive impact of the show’s treatment of gender. The evidence of the

impact that RPDR has had in feminist communities can be read from the

testimonies of viewers online, with women crediting the show with allowing

them to love and embrace their gender expression. The participatory fan culture

and communities build around the show on YouTube and Facebook demonstrate

the positive impact of the show in creating LGBT resources and solidarity

Ultimately, this thesis has demonstrated that RPDR is both brilliant and flawed.

The show’s ability to provide visibility and representation for LGBT people and

interests in the mainstream media is unique and prolific, and the solidarity

56

amongst its fans creates and strengthens the sense of LGBT community in a

largely hetero-patriarchal society. However, the show’s representation is

weighed down by a privileging of white femininity in its portrayal of racialised

gender, and this compromises its ability to be entirely positive. As the show

continues to move towards a more fluid and non- binary understanding of

gender, hopefully it will also begin to explore more non- white constructions of

racialised gender and expand its representation.

REFERENCES Addams, C. (2014). Transphobic and Homophobic Slurs Don't Matter, but Our Response Does. Retrieved 20 September, 2015, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/calpernia-addams/parker-marie-molloy_b_5077322.html?ir=Australia Alcinii, D. (2015). Passion inks global sales for RuPaul's Drag Race. Retrieved 12 June, 2015, from http://realscreen.com/2015/05/26/passion-inks-global-sales-for-rupauls-drag-race/ Alexander, J. (2002). Homo-Pages and Queer Sites: Studying the Construction and Representation of Queer Identities on the World Wide Web. International Journal of Sexuality and Gender Studies, 7(2/3), 85-106. Anthony, L. (2014). Dragging with an Accent: Linguistic Stereotypes, Language Barriers and Translingualism. In J. Daems (Ed.), The Makeup of RuPaul's Drag Race: Essays on the Queen of Reality Shows. North Carolina: McFarland and Company, Inc. Aviance, N. J. (2014). The Problem With Automatically Labeling Drag Queens as Cisgender Gay Men. Retrieved 23 September, 2015, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/j-nelson-aviance/post_7434_b_5233848.html?ir=Australia Berns, F. G. P. (2014). "For your next drag challenge", You Must Do Something: Playfulness Without Rules. In J. Daems (Ed.), The Makeup of RuPaul's Drag Race: Essays on the Queen of Reality Shows. North Carolina: McFarland and Company, Inc. Bresnahan, H. (2014). 5 Reasons Why "RuPaul's Drag Race" is One of the More Important Shows on TV. Retrieved 25 September, 2015, from http://femmagazine.com/2014/05/19/5-reasons-why-rupauls-drag-race-is-one-of-the-more-important-shows-on-tv/ Bromseth, J., & Sunden, J. (2011). Queering Internet Studies: Intersections of Gender and Sexuality. In M. Consalvo & C. Ess (Eds.), The Handbook of Internet Studies. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Broverman, N. (2015). Mary Cheney Compares Drag to Blackface. Retrieved 24 September, 2015, from http://www.advocate.com/politics/media/2015/01/30/mary-cheney-compares-drag-blackface Butler, J. (1990). Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge. Butler, J. (1993). Critically Queer. GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies, 1(1), 17-32. doi: 10.1215/10642684-1-1-17

Butler, J. (1993a). Imitation and Gender Insubordination. In H. Abelove (Ed.), The Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader. New York: Routledge. Butler, J. (2014). Judith Butler addresses TERFs and the work of Sheila Jeffreys and Janice Raymond. In C. Williams (Ed.), The TERFs. theterfs.com. Cashmore, E. (2012). Beyond Black: Celebrity and Race in Obama's America. Edinburgh: A&C Black. Chavez, K. R., & Griffin, C. L. (2012). Standing in the Intersection: Feminist Voices, Feminist Practices in Communication Studies. New York: SUNY Press. Chernoff, C. (2014). Of Women and Queens: Gendered Realities and Re-Education in RuPaul's Drag Empire. In J. Daems (Ed.), The Makeup of RuPaul's Drag Race: Essays on the Queen of Reality Shows. North Carolina: McFarland and Company, Inc. Clarke, A. (2014). The Problem With Feminism in RuPaul's Drag Race. Retrieved 24 September, 2015, from http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ashley-clarke/rupals-drag-race_b_4957651.html Collins, P. H. (2004). Black Sexual Politics: African Americans, gender, and the new racism. New York: Routledge. Contreras, D. (2005). Unrequited Love and Gay Latino Culture: What Have You Done To My Heart. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Cracker, M. (2015). Drag Isnt Like Blackface. But That Doesn't Mean It's Always Kind to Women. Retrieved 25 September, 2015, from http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/02/17/is_mary_cheney_right_about_drag_being_like_blackface.html Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence Against Women of Colour. Stanford Law Review, 43(1241), 1241-1299. Daems, J. (2014). Introduction: RuPaul's Ambivalent Appropriation of Pop Culture. In J. Daems (Ed.), The Makeup of RuPaul's Drag Race: Essays on the Queen of Reality Shows. North Carolina: McFarland and Company, Inc. Del Mar, P. (2014). Candis Cayne Defends Drag Race. Retrieved 23 September, 2015, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pollo-del-mar/candis-cayne-defends-drag-race_b_5481098.html?ir=Australia Dubriwny, T. N. (2012). The Vulnerable Empowered Woman: Feminism, Postfeminism, and Women's Health. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. Dyer, R. (1998). Stars. London: BFI Publishing.

Elliott, S. (2011). Sponsorship of This Series Is No Drag. Retrieved 30 May, 2015, from http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/18/sponsorship-of-this-series-is-no-drag/?_r=0 Escudero-Alias, M. (2008). Long Live the King: A Genealogy of Performative Genders. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Fine, D. J., & Shreve, E. (2014). The Prime of Miss RuPaul Charles: Allusion, Betrayal and Charismatic Pedagogy. In J. Daems (Ed.), The Makeup of RuPaul's Drag Race: Essays on the Queen of Reality Shows. North Carolina: McFarland and Company, Inc. Ford, Z. (2014). The Quiet Clash Between Trans Women and Drag Queens. Retrieved 22 Septmber, 2015, from http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2014/06/25/3449462/drag-queens-trans-women/ G.L.A.A.D. (2011). GLAAD Media Reference Guide - Transgender Issues. Retrieved September 23, 2015, from http://www.glaad.org/reference/transgender GayRadioShow (Producer). (2015). Interviewing Pearl, Violet Chachki, and Kennedy Davenport from Season 7 [Retrieved from http://thehomohappyhour.podomatic.com/entry/2015-04-21T12_39_42-07_00 Geier, K. (2014). Five reasons why I'm a fan of RuPaul's Drag Race. Retrieved 24 September, 2015, from http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2014_02/five_reasons_why_im_a_fan_of_r049188.php Gerstner, D. A. (2012). Routledge International Encyclopedia of Queer Culture. London: Routledge. Gordon, E. (2012). What RuPaul Taught Me About My Femininity. Retrieved 24 September 2015, from http://www.xojane.com/entertainment/what-rupauls-taught-me-about-my-femininity Greenwood, C. (22 July, 2015). RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars 2 confirmed. Retrieved 16 August, 2015, from http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/rupauls-drag-race-stars-2-6113484 Gross, L. (2003). The Gay Global Village in Cyberspace. In N. Couldry & J. Curran (Eds.), Contesting Media Power: Alternative Media in a Networked World. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Gross, L. (2007). Foreword. In K. O'Riordan & D. J. Phillips (Eds.), Queer Online: Media Technology & Sexuality. New York: Peter Lang. Halberstam, J. (2005). In Queer Time and Place: Transgender Bodies, Subcultural Lives. New York: NYU Press. Harper, P. B. (1999). Private Affairs: Critical Ventures in the Culture of Social Relations. New York: NYU Press.

Hooks, B. (2012). Is Paris Burning? Reel to Real: Race, Sex and Class at the Movies. London: Routledge. James, A. (2014). RuPaul Blasted For Transphobia By The Advocate; Not Everyone Agrees. Retrieved 24 September, 2015, from http://www.queerty.com/rupaul-blasted-for-transphobia-by-the-advocate-not-everyone-agrees-20140407 Jeffreys, S. (1997). Transgender Activism: A Lesbian Feminist Perspective. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 1(3-4), 55-74. Jenkins, H. (1992). Textual Poachers: Television Fans and Participatory Culture. New York: Routledge. Jenkins, H. (2006). Interactive Audiences? The 'Collective Intelligence' of Media Fans Fans, Bloggers, and Gamers: Exploring Participatory Culture New York: New York University Press. Kaplan, D., & Slattery, D. (2015). Bruce Jenner's ABC interview draws nerly 17 million viewers. Retrieved 19 May, 2015, from http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv/bruce-jenner-boosts-abc-ratings-millions-watch-article-1.2198714 Kelley, J. M., & Meyer, M. D. E. (2004). Queering the Eye? The politics of gay white men and gender (in)visibility. Feminist Media Studies, 4(2), 214 - 216. Kelly, C. (2003, 17 August 2013). Gay TV comes out, but who's proud? Fort Worth Star Telegram. Kidd, W., & Teagle, A. (2012). Culture and Identity. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Kohlsdorf, K. (2014). Policing the Proper Queer Subject: RuPaul's Drag Race in the Neoliberal "Post" Moment. In J. Daems (Ed.), The Makeup of RuPaul's Drag Race: Essays on the Queen of Reality Shows. North Carolina: McFarland and Company, Inc. Lambe, S. (2015). For RuPaul's Drag Race Mainstream is Jumping the Shark. Retrieved 13 June, 2015, from http://www.etonline.com/tv/160480_for_rupauls_drag_race_mainstream_is_jumping_the_shark/ Maddeaux, S. (2014). Hiring RuPaul was just one of MAC's bold, progressive moves - now, Frank Toskan finally gets his dues. Retrieved 4 September, 2015, from http://news.nationalpost.com/life/style/hiring-rupaul-was-just-one-of-macs-bold-progressive-moves-now-frank-toskan-finally-gets-his-dues Marcel, M. (2014). Representing Gender, Race, and Realness: The Television World of America's Next Drag Superstars. In J. Daems (Ed.), The Makeup of

RuPaul's Drag Race: Essays on the Queen of Reality Shows. North Carolina: McFarland & Company, Inc. Marcel, M., Norris, L., Anthony, L., Kohlsdorf, K., Berns, F. G. P., Mayora, R. G., Shreve, E. (2014). The Makeup of RuPaul's Drag Race: Essays on the Queen of Reality Shows (J. Daems Ed.). North Carolina: McFarland and Company, Inc. Mathieson, C. (2015). Transparent is the best TV show of the year. Retrieved 19 May, 2015, from http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/transparent-is-the-best-tv-show-of-the-year-20150309-13yz8n.html Mayora, R. G. (2014). Covergirl, Girl: Branding Puerto Rican Drag in 21st-Century U.S. Popular Culture. In J. Daems (Ed.), The Makeup of RuPaul's Drag Race: Essays on the Queen of Reality Shows. North Carolina: McFarland and Company, Inc. Molloy, P. M. (2014). RuPaul's Drag Race, Logo TV Apologize for Transphobic Slur. Retrieved 1 October, 2015, from http://www.advocate.com/politics/transgender/2014/04/14/rupauls-drag-race-logo-tv-apologize-transphobic-slur Morrison, J. (2014). "Draguating" to Normal: Camp and Homonormative Politics. In J. Daems (Ed.), The Makeup of RuPaul's Drag Race: Essays on the Queen of Reality Shows. North Carolina: McFarland and Company, Inc. Moylan, B. (2015). Paris is Burning sizzles again at the Sundance Film Festival. Retrieved 31 May, 2015, from http://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2015/jan/29/sundance-2015-paris-is-burning-restored-jennie-livingston Murray, S., & Ouelette, L. (2004). Reality TV: Remaking Television Culture (Second Edition ed.). New York: NYU Press. Nededog, J. (2015). Logo TV Gives 'RuPaul's Drag Race' Early Season 8 Renewal. Retrieved 30 May, 2015, from http://www.thewrap.com/logo-tv-gives-rupauls-drag-race-early-season-8-renewal-exclusive/ Newton, E. (1972). Mother Camp. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Nichols, J. M. (2015). 'RuPaul's DragCon' Coming To Los Angeles Convention Center. Retrieved 25 September, 2015, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2015/02/23/rupauls-dragcon_n_6738254.html?ir=Australia Norris, L. (2014). Of Fish and Feminists: Homonormative Misogyny and the Trans*Queen. In J. Daems (Ed.), The Makeup of RuPaul's Drag Race: Essays on the Queen of Reality Shows. North Carolina: McFarland and Company, Inc.

Ozog, J. (2014). RuPaul's Drag Race: Feminist or Not? Retrieved 23 September, 2015, from http://www.theradicalnotion.com/rupauls-drag-race-feminist-not/ Patrick, P. L. (2010). English, African-American Vernacular. In K. Brown & S. Ogilvie (Eds.), Concise Encyclopedia of Languages of the World. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Pozner, J. (2010). Reality Bites Back: The Troubling Truth About Guilty Pleasure TV. Berkeley: Seal Press. Pyke, K. D., & Johnson, D. L. (2003). Asian American Women and Racialised Femininities: "Doing" Gender across Cultural Worlds. Gender and Society, 17(1), 33-53. Raymond, J. G. (2006). Sappho by Surgery: The Transsexually Constructed Lesbian-Feminist. In S. Stryker & S. Whittle (Eds.), The Transgender Studies Reader (Vol. 1). London: Routledge. Reynolds, D. (2014). Chaz Bono Talks Trans Issues on RuPaul's Drag Race. Retrieved 24 September, 2015, from http://www.advocate.com/politics/transgender/2014/04/15/chaz-bono-talks-trans-issues-rupauls-drag-race Riddell, C. (2006). Divided Sisterhood: A Critical Review of Janice Raymond's 'The Transsexual Empire'. In S. Stryker & S. Whittle (Eds.), The Transgender Studies Reader (Vol. 1). London: Routledge. Rigby, S. (2014). America's Next Top Model renewed for 22nd cycle by the CW. Retrieved 31 May, 2015, from http://www.digitalspy.com.au/ustv/s68/americas-next-top-model/news/a610746/americas-next-top-model-renewed-for-22nd-cycle-by-the-cw.html#~pefmvKLy5Vz3nD RuPaul. (1995). Lettin' It All Hang Out. New York: Hyperion Books. RuPaul. (2010). Workin' It! RuPaul's Guide to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Style. New York: Harper Collins Publishers Inc. RuPaul. (2014a). Drag Mocks Identity. On Born Naked. Los Angeles: RuCo Inc. RuPaul, & Piane, L. (2014). Born Naked. On Born Naked. Los Angeles: RuCo Inc. Sandberg, B. E. (2015). 'Sense8' Team on Breaking Transgender Barriers. Retrieved 15 September 2015, from http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/sense8-team-breaking-transgender-barriers-811643 Sender, K. (2005). Queens for a Day: Queer Eye for the Straight Guy and the Neoliberal Project. Critical Studies in Media Communications, 23(2), 131 - 151.

Shepherd, J. E. (2013). RuPaul Runs the World. Retrieved 12 June, 2015, from http://www.spin.com/2013/04/rupaul-runs-the-world-drag-race-supermodel/ Sontag, S. (1966). Notes on "Camp" Against Interpretation: And Other Essays. New York: Picador, USA. Stanhope, K. (2015). Glee's Dot Marie Jones Opens Up About Transgender Storyine: 'It's a Long Time Coming'. Retrieved 31 May, 2015, from http://www.tvguide.com/news/glee-dot-marie-jones-transgender-story/ Stryker, S. (2006a). Introduction to 'Sappho by Surgery'. In S. Stryker & S. Whittle (Eds.), The Transgender Studies Reader (Vol. 1). London: Routledge. Stryker, S., & Whittle, S. (Eds.). (2006). The Transgender Studies Reader. London: Routledge. TheBacklot. (2015). "Drag Race" Season 7 Guest Judges Revealed! Retrieved 5 September, 2015, from http://www.thebacklot.com/video/rupauls-drag-race-season-7-premiere-date-set/ Tomashoff, C. (2015). Transgender Stories, Characters Are at a Turning point in TV History. Retrieved 31 May, 2015, from http://www.tvinsider.com/article/1060/trans-characters-are-at-a-turning-point-in-tv-history/ Vargas, Y. V. (2008). The Commodification of Sexuality: A Critical Analysis of Queer Eye. (Doctor of Philosophy), Florida State University. (4572) Vargas, Y. V. (2010). A Queer Eye for Capitalism: the Commodification of Sexuality in American Television. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Weston, K. (2013). Families We Choose: Lesbians, Gays, Kinship. New York: Columbia Univeristy Press. Williams, C. (2013). You might be a TERF if... Retrieved from http://www.transadvocate.com/you-might-be-a-terf-if_n_10226.htm Yarbrough, M., & Bennett, C. (2000). Cassandra and the Sistahs: the Peculiar Tretment of African American Women in the Myth of Women as Liars. Journal of Gender, Race and Justice, 3(2), 625-658.

FIGURES

1.1 Sourced from tumblr.com

1.2 Sourced from pinterest.com

1.3 Sourced from pinterest.com

2.1 Screenshot from season 7, episode 1 of RPDR: “Born Naked”

2.2 Screenshot from season 7, episode 3 of RPDR: “The DESPY Awards”

2.3 Screenshot from season 7, episode 14 of RPDR: “Finale”

2.4 Screenshot from season 5, episode 1 of RPDR: “RuPaulywood or Bust”

2.5 Screenshot from season 5, episode 6 of RPDR: “RuPaul Roast”

2.6 Sourced from tumblr.com

2.7 Screenshot from season 5, episode 2 of RPDR: “Lipsync Extravaganza”

2.8 Screenshot from season 5, episode 2 of RPDR: “Lipsync Extravaganza”

2.9 Collation of screenshots from season 6, episode 11 of RPDR: “Glitter Ball”

2.10 Screenshot from season 4, episode 10 of RPDR: “Dads I’d Like To Frock”

3.1 Screenshot of http://worldofwonder.net/watch-now-wowpresents-network-

recap/, taken 30 September, 2015

3.2 Screenshot of https://www.facebook.com/Rupauls-Drag-Race-Family-

472025909548940/timeline/, taken 30 September, 2015

3.3 Ibid.

3.4 Ibid.