Welcome, everyone, to today's deep dive. We are
so glad to have you here. You, the endlessly
curious learner, because today's topic is, well,
it's a really fascinating one. It really is.
It challenges a lot of preconceptions. Exactly.
So today, our source material is a Wikipedia
article detailing the history of female impersonation.
And our mission for this deep dive is to, you
know, trace this incredibly surprising, really
complex evolution of men performing as women
on stage. Right, because to truly understand
it, you kind of have to strip away all of your
modern assumptions. Yeah, you really do. We're
going to see how theater and massive societal
shifts, and even sheer legal survival, completely
shape this art form. It's a journey, for sure.
OK, let's unpack this, because to even start
this conversation, we have to set a baseline.
We need to make a really crucial distinction
right up front. Impersonation is not a synonym
for drag. No. No, it absolutely isn't. And that
distinction is actually our key to unlocking
this whole history. Right. Because when we talk
about drag today, it's often a lived form of
self -expression. It's deeply tied to queer identity.
But the source material defines female impersonation
very strictly as a theatrical performance. It's
just meant to entertain an audience. It's a job,
basically. Cleaner profession, yeah. The really
wild part is that historically, it comes from
a wide range of gender identities, which very
much includes heteronormativity. Exactly. And
once you separate the onstage performance from
the offstage identity, you see that the performance
of gender onstage is really just a mirror. A
mirror. I like that. Yeah, it's a mirror reflecting
the laws, the cultural norms, and the anxieties
of whatever era it's taking place in. OK, so
to understand the modern stage, I guess we need
to look at why men first started performing as
women to begin with. So let's guide everyone
all the way back to ancient Greece. Right, let's
go back to antiquity. Because in ancient western
cultures, women were, well, they were simply
not allowed to perform on stage. The public sphere
was entirely male. Oh. So by default, male actors
just absorbed all the female roles. Because of
that hard legal boundary, men and boys were actually
expected to dress as women for various religious
ceremonies and rituals. Wait, wait. Let me just
make sure I have this right. Wait, so in antiquity,
this wasn't an underground rebellious act of
self -expression. It was essentially a strict
civic uniform or religious obligation. Yes, exactly.
It was an establishment rule. You were just fulfilling
your civic and religious duty. That is just,
wow, that completely flips the script on how
we view gender performance today. It does. And,
you know, the source material actually points
out a major controversy here among historians.
There's a big debate about whether what we consider
the deliberate entertaining art of female impersonation
truly emerged in those ancient Greek theaters
at all. Oh, really? Because it was just a mandate.
Right. Some historians argue that its true roots
as a distinct theatrical art form belong much
later, like in Shakespearean plays or more dark.
in 19th century minstrel shows. Oh wow okay so
that perfectly pivots us from the ancient world
to the shores of the United States. Let's look
at the American evolution of this art form which
as the sources show was heavily influenced by
minstrelsy. Yeah and this is a very heavy very
dark chapter in the history of American theater.
It is and just to be clear with you listening
as we dive into this we are looking objectively
at the historical facts to understand how this
theater functioned. We are obviously not endorsing
the deeply prejudiced racist viewpoints of the
era. Absolutely. We are just impartially reporting
the mechanics of the time. And Minstrelsy was
an explicitly racist form of entertainment. It
was massively popular from the 1820s, especially
with the creation of the Jim Crow character in
1828, right up into the 1920s. The whole century.
Yeah, a long time. And within these shows, you
had specific female impersonation roles, primarily
known as wenches and dames. And who was playing
these roles? I mean, who are the performers?
Well, it was a mix. You had cisgender, heterosexual
men, as well as closeted queer men playing these
parts. The source highlights a specific historical
figure here, Thomas L. Moxley, right? Yes. Moxley
performed under the name Master Floyd in the
1850s and 60s. And he was a very celebrated blackface
female impersonator. But what really stands out
to me is the aesthetic they were going for. Because,
um... They were not trying to look convincing
at all. No, not even a little bit. That's critical
detail. These performers did not attempt to present
a convincing illusion of femininity. They intentionally
kept their masculine traits, right? Exactly.
They retained their masculine physical traits
to lampoon cisgender women, very often black
women using blackface, and they relied entirely
on sexist and racist stereotypes for this kind
of body, low brow humor. So the intention here
wasn't to attribute or a realistic portrayal.
They were using performance like a funhouse mirror
specifically designed to distort and mock the
subject for a laugh. That's the perfect way to
describe it, a funhouse mirror. The male performer's
ego was protected because the audience clearly
saw he was a man while maximizing the denigration
of the woman he was mocking. The audience is
just clapping for cruelty, basically. But then,
as we move into the late 1800s, America starts
to change dramatically. Right. If we connect
this to the bigger picture, the shift from rural
farms to cities was exploding. Industrialization.
Exactly. Plus you have this massive influx of
immigrants and the great migration of African
-Americans. All of this expanded the theater
audiences tremendously. Right, because you have
all these diverse people crammed into cities.
So the broad, crude comedy of minstrelsy had
to evolve into the varied acts of vaudeville.
Yes. And in vaudeville, we see a real split.
Yeah, because the body comedy definitely survived.
Yeah. Right. The source mentions performers like
George W. Monroe. Oh, yeah. Monroe became a massive
Broadway star playing these gossipy Irish women.
He was the star of the 1902 musical, Doings of
Mrs. Dooley. Right. But alongside that low comedy
style, a totally new figure emerged. And this
is the prima donna or the female illusionist.
And this is where the contrast is just staggering.
Unlike the minstrel shows, these illusionists
didn't denigrate women. No, they celebrated them.
They did. They attempted to present a flawless,
highly realistic illusion wearing the most tasteful,
elegant fashions of the period. Here's where
it gets really interesting, because these tasteful
illusionists became absolute superstars. I mean,
wild. mainstream success. They were the peak
of vaudeville royalty. Yeah, take Julian Elting,
for example. He became a massive Broadway star.
He was so popular and so convincing that he was
actually posing for corset ads. Which is just
incredible to think about for the early 20th
century. He even published his own magazine in
1913. It was called Magazine and Beauty Hints.
Julian Elting was basically an early 20th century
beauty influencer, a male performer selling literal
cosmetic and fashion advice to women. Exactly.
Women were buying his magazine to learn how to
dress and do their makeup. It's wild. Yeah. And
he wasn't alone. On the West Coast, you had Bothwell
Brown dominating the circus. Right, Brown even
starred in the 1919 film Yankee Doodle in Berlin.
And it crossed racial barriers too, right? Even
in a heavily segregated landscape, you had...
African -American comedians like Andrew Tribble
finding major success on Broadway and in Black
Vaudeville. They were celebrated. They were wealthy.
It was really a golden age for the female illusionists.
But then, and this is the really sobering part
of the deep dive, if they were these massive
Broadway superstars and influencers, what caused
the decline? Why did it stop? Well, the cultural
tide turned. We enter the progressive era. And
the progressive era brought a huge cultural backlash.
What's fascinating here is how quickly the law
and public opinion can turn on an art form. The
decline happened because female impersonation
started becoming heavily associated in the public
eye with sex work and homosexuality. And society
was panicking about that. Absolutely panicking.
In the 20th century, it became strictly criminal
in many American cities to be homosexual or even
for LGBTQ people to congregate in public. Just
to exist together in a room was illegal. So what
does this all mean? Going back to our definition
at the start of the deep dive, it means that
the stage performance became a massive liability.
A legal hazard. To survive legally and just to
keep working in these non LGBTQ nightclubs, female
impersonators had to make a concerted overt effort
to present themselves as distinctly heterosexual.
They had to prove they were straight just to
put on a show. Exactly. I want to emphasize the
stakes here for you listening. Right up until
the 1970s, distancing this performance art from
queer identity wasn't just like an artistic choice
or a PR move. Right. It was a necessary literal
survival tactic to avoid criminal charges and
going to jail. That is just so heavy. You have
artists forced to curate fake personas off stage
just so they won't be arrested for the illusion
they create on stage. Yeah. It really puts the
entire history into perspective. It does. It
shows how vulnerable the performers were. the
winds of the law. Well as we wrap up this deep
dive I want to remind you, the listener, that
the next time you see theatrical gender performance
you're not just looking at a costume or a character.
No, you're looking at a deeply layered history.
Exactly. You are looking at an art form shaped
by ancient religious rights, completely scarred
by 19th century American racism, elevated by
vaudeville superstars, and tempered by the harsh
punitive legal realities of the 20th century.
It's all of that woven together. And I want to
leave you with one final question to ponder today.
I'll lay it on us. If female impersonation historically
shifted from, you know, a religious obligation
to a tool for mockery to celebrated beauty illusion
and finally to a forced heterosexual survival
tactic. Right. What does the stage performance
of gender actually tell us about the anxieties
and desires of the audience watching it rather
than the person performing it? Wow. Are we judging
the actor or are we just staring at our own societal
reflection? That is a fantastic thought to leave
on. Thank you so much for joining us on this
deep dive and keep questioning what you see in
the mirror.