WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:02.879 Welcome, everyone, to today's deep dive. We are 00:00:02.879 --> 00:00:05.960 so glad to have you here. You, the endlessly 00:00:05.960 --> 00:00:08.560 curious learner, because today's topic is, well, 00:00:08.580 --> 00:00:10.839 it's a really fascinating one. It really is. 00:00:10.839 --> 00:00:13.060 It challenges a lot of preconceptions. Exactly. 00:00:13.660 --> 00:00:16.120 So today, our source material is a Wikipedia 00:00:16.120 --> 00:00:19.260 article detailing the history of female impersonation. 00:00:19.699 --> 00:00:22.420 And our mission for this deep dive is to, you 00:00:22.420 --> 00:00:25.890 know, trace this incredibly surprising, really 00:00:25.890 --> 00:00:29.070 complex evolution of men performing as women 00:00:29.070 --> 00:00:31.589 on stage. Right, because to truly understand 00:00:31.589 --> 00:00:33.350 it, you kind of have to strip away all of your 00:00:33.350 --> 00:00:35.729 modern assumptions. Yeah, you really do. We're 00:00:35.729 --> 00:00:38.369 going to see how theater and massive societal 00:00:38.369 --> 00:00:42.009 shifts, and even sheer legal survival, completely 00:00:42.009 --> 00:00:44.109 shape this art form. It's a journey, for sure. 00:00:44.229 --> 00:00:46.850 OK, let's unpack this, because to even start 00:00:46.850 --> 00:00:48.630 this conversation, we have to set a baseline. 00:00:49.009 --> 00:00:50.710 We need to make a really crucial distinction 00:00:50.710 --> 00:00:53.950 right up front. Impersonation is not a synonym 00:00:53.950 --> 00:00:56.750 for drag. No. No, it absolutely isn't. And that 00:00:56.750 --> 00:00:58.890 distinction is actually our key to unlocking 00:00:58.890 --> 00:01:00.649 this whole history. Right. Because when we talk 00:01:00.649 --> 00:01:03.990 about drag today, it's often a lived form of 00:01:03.990 --> 00:01:07.049 self -expression. It's deeply tied to queer identity. 00:01:07.849 --> 00:01:10.849 But the source material defines female impersonation 00:01:10.849 --> 00:01:14.150 very strictly as a theatrical performance. It's 00:01:14.150 --> 00:01:16.170 just meant to entertain an audience. It's a job, 00:01:16.450 --> 00:01:19.400 basically. Cleaner profession, yeah. The really 00:01:19.400 --> 00:01:21.739 wild part is that historically, it comes from 00:01:21.739 --> 00:01:24.560 a wide range of gender identities, which very 00:01:24.560 --> 00:01:27.260 much includes heteronormativity. Exactly. And 00:01:27.260 --> 00:01:29.579 once you separate the onstage performance from 00:01:29.579 --> 00:01:32.299 the offstage identity, you see that the performance 00:01:32.299 --> 00:01:34.640 of gender onstage is really just a mirror. A 00:01:34.640 --> 00:01:36.780 mirror. I like that. Yeah, it's a mirror reflecting 00:01:36.780 --> 00:01:39.939 the laws, the cultural norms, and the anxieties 00:01:39.939 --> 00:01:42.959 of whatever era it's taking place in. OK, so 00:01:42.959 --> 00:01:45.659 to understand the modern stage, I guess we need 00:01:45.659 --> 00:01:49.019 to look at why men first started performing as 00:01:49.019 --> 00:01:51.219 women to begin with. So let's guide everyone 00:01:51.219 --> 00:01:53.500 all the way back to ancient Greece. Right, let's 00:01:53.500 --> 00:01:55.700 go back to antiquity. Because in ancient western 00:01:55.700 --> 00:01:57.780 cultures, women were, well, they were simply 00:01:57.780 --> 00:02:00.180 not allowed to perform on stage. The public sphere 00:02:00.180 --> 00:02:03.959 was entirely male. Oh. So by default, male actors 00:02:03.959 --> 00:02:07.060 just absorbed all the female roles. Because of 00:02:07.060 --> 00:02:10.460 that hard legal boundary, men and boys were actually 00:02:10.460 --> 00:02:13.039 expected to dress as women for various religious 00:02:13.039 --> 00:02:15.219 ceremonies and rituals. Wait, wait. Let me just 00:02:15.219 --> 00:02:17.379 make sure I have this right. Wait, so in antiquity, 00:02:17.539 --> 00:02:20.439 this wasn't an underground rebellious act of 00:02:20.439 --> 00:02:23.560 self -expression. It was essentially a strict 00:02:23.560 --> 00:02:27.680 civic uniform or religious obligation. Yes, exactly. 00:02:27.759 --> 00:02:29.860 It was an establishment rule. You were just fulfilling 00:02:29.860 --> 00:02:32.710 your civic and religious duty. That is just, 00:02:32.710 --> 00:02:35.449 wow, that completely flips the script on how 00:02:35.449 --> 00:02:38.409 we view gender performance today. It does. And, 00:02:38.669 --> 00:02:40.050 you know, the source material actually points 00:02:40.050 --> 00:02:42.729 out a major controversy here among historians. 00:02:43.330 --> 00:02:45.530 There's a big debate about whether what we consider 00:02:45.530 --> 00:02:48.569 the deliberate entertaining art of female impersonation 00:02:48.569 --> 00:02:51.129 truly emerged in those ancient Greek theaters 00:02:51.129 --> 00:02:53.210 at all. Oh, really? Because it was just a mandate. 00:02:53.650 --> 00:02:56.069 Right. Some historians argue that its true roots 00:02:56.069 --> 00:02:58.270 as a distinct theatrical art form belong much 00:02:58.270 --> 00:03:01.129 later, like in Shakespearean plays or more dark. 00:03:00.969 --> 00:03:04.969 in 19th century minstrel shows. Oh wow okay so 00:03:04.969 --> 00:03:07.569 that perfectly pivots us from the ancient world 00:03:07.569 --> 00:03:10.110 to the shores of the United States. Let's look 00:03:10.110 --> 00:03:12.449 at the American evolution of this art form which 00:03:12.449 --> 00:03:15.509 as the sources show was heavily influenced by 00:03:15.509 --> 00:03:18.789 minstrelsy. Yeah and this is a very heavy very 00:03:18.789 --> 00:03:21.030 dark chapter in the history of American theater. 00:03:21.150 --> 00:03:23.270 It is and just to be clear with you listening 00:03:23.270 --> 00:03:25.849 as we dive into this we are looking objectively 00:03:25.849 --> 00:03:28.710 at the historical facts to understand how this 00:03:28.710 --> 00:03:32.479 theater functioned. We are obviously not endorsing 00:03:32.479 --> 00:03:35.180 the deeply prejudiced racist viewpoints of the 00:03:35.180 --> 00:03:37.400 era. Absolutely. We are just impartially reporting 00:03:37.400 --> 00:03:40.159 the mechanics of the time. And Minstrelsy was 00:03:40.159 --> 00:03:42.460 an explicitly racist form of entertainment. It 00:03:42.460 --> 00:03:45.300 was massively popular from the 1820s, especially 00:03:45.300 --> 00:03:47.699 with the creation of the Jim Crow character in 00:03:47.699 --> 00:03:50.539 1828, right up into the 1920s. The whole century. 00:03:50.699 --> 00:03:52.719 Yeah, a long time. And within these shows, you 00:03:52.719 --> 00:03:55.280 had specific female impersonation roles, primarily 00:03:55.280 --> 00:03:58.240 known as wenches and dames. And who was playing 00:03:58.240 --> 00:03:59.919 these roles? I mean, who are the performers? 00:03:59.919 --> 00:04:02.599 Well, it was a mix. You had cisgender, heterosexual 00:04:02.599 --> 00:04:05.400 men, as well as closeted queer men playing these 00:04:05.400 --> 00:04:08.120 parts. The source highlights a specific historical 00:04:08.120 --> 00:04:12.099 figure here, Thomas L. Moxley, right? Yes. Moxley 00:04:12.099 --> 00:04:14.780 performed under the name Master Floyd in the 00:04:14.780 --> 00:04:19.259 1850s and 60s. And he was a very celebrated blackface 00:04:19.259 --> 00:04:22.120 female impersonator. But what really stands out 00:04:22.120 --> 00:04:25.000 to me is the aesthetic they were going for. Because, 00:04:25.100 --> 00:04:28.019 um... They were not trying to look convincing 00:04:28.019 --> 00:04:30.259 at all. No, not even a little bit. That's critical 00:04:30.259 --> 00:04:33.399 detail. These performers did not attempt to present 00:04:33.399 --> 00:04:36.220 a convincing illusion of femininity. They intentionally 00:04:36.220 --> 00:04:38.180 kept their masculine traits, right? Exactly. 00:04:38.259 --> 00:04:40.240 They retained their masculine physical traits 00:04:40.240 --> 00:04:43.519 to lampoon cisgender women, very often black 00:04:43.519 --> 00:04:46.300 women using blackface, and they relied entirely 00:04:46.300 --> 00:04:49.160 on sexist and racist stereotypes for this kind 00:04:49.160 --> 00:04:52.199 of body, low brow humor. So the intention here 00:04:52.199 --> 00:04:54.480 wasn't to attribute or a realistic portrayal. 00:04:54.480 --> 00:04:56.980 They were using performance like a funhouse mirror 00:04:56.980 --> 00:04:59.779 specifically designed to distort and mock the 00:04:59.779 --> 00:05:01.980 subject for a laugh. That's the perfect way to 00:05:01.980 --> 00:05:04.660 describe it, a funhouse mirror. The male performer's 00:05:04.660 --> 00:05:06.420 ego was protected because the audience clearly 00:05:06.420 --> 00:05:08.800 saw he was a man while maximizing the denigration 00:05:08.800 --> 00:05:10.920 of the woman he was mocking. The audience is 00:05:10.920 --> 00:05:14.279 just clapping for cruelty, basically. But then, 00:05:14.360 --> 00:05:17.459 as we move into the late 1800s, America starts 00:05:17.459 --> 00:05:20.370 to change dramatically. Right. If we connect 00:05:20.370 --> 00:05:23.110 this to the bigger picture, the shift from rural 00:05:23.110 --> 00:05:26.230 farms to cities was exploding. Industrialization. 00:05:26.449 --> 00:05:29.529 Exactly. Plus you have this massive influx of 00:05:29.529 --> 00:05:31.689 immigrants and the great migration of African 00:05:31.689 --> 00:05:34.170 -Americans. All of this expanded the theater 00:05:34.170 --> 00:05:36.290 audiences tremendously. Right, because you have 00:05:36.290 --> 00:05:38.569 all these diverse people crammed into cities. 00:05:38.689 --> 00:05:42.009 So the broad, crude comedy of minstrelsy had 00:05:42.009 --> 00:05:44.189 to evolve into the varied acts of vaudeville. 00:05:44.490 --> 00:05:47.889 Yes. And in vaudeville, we see a real split. 00:05:48.110 --> 00:05:50.790 Yeah, because the body comedy definitely survived. 00:05:50.870 --> 00:05:53.810 Yeah. Right. The source mentions performers like 00:05:53.810 --> 00:05:57.069 George W. Monroe. Oh, yeah. Monroe became a massive 00:05:57.069 --> 00:05:59.689 Broadway star playing these gossipy Irish women. 00:05:59.829 --> 00:06:02.709 He was the star of the 1902 musical, Doings of 00:06:02.709 --> 00:06:05.850 Mrs. Dooley. Right. But alongside that low comedy 00:06:05.850 --> 00:06:08.620 style, a totally new figure emerged. And this 00:06:08.620 --> 00:06:10.939 is the prima donna or the female illusionist. 00:06:11.040 --> 00:06:13.279 And this is where the contrast is just staggering. 00:06:13.600 --> 00:06:15.540 Unlike the minstrel shows, these illusionists 00:06:15.540 --> 00:06:17.860 didn't denigrate women. No, they celebrated them. 00:06:18.019 --> 00:06:20.899 They did. They attempted to present a flawless, 00:06:21.100 --> 00:06:24.279 highly realistic illusion wearing the most tasteful, 00:06:24.339 --> 00:06:26.560 elegant fashions of the period. Here's where 00:06:26.560 --> 00:06:29.199 it gets really interesting, because these tasteful 00:06:29.199 --> 00:06:32.379 illusionists became absolute superstars. I mean, 00:06:33.160 --> 00:06:35.350 wild. mainstream success. They were the peak 00:06:35.350 --> 00:06:38.250 of vaudeville royalty. Yeah, take Julian Elting, 00:06:38.350 --> 00:06:41.529 for example. He became a massive Broadway star. 00:06:41.870 --> 00:06:44.449 He was so popular and so convincing that he was 00:06:44.449 --> 00:06:47.170 actually posing for corset ads. Which is just 00:06:47.170 --> 00:06:49.310 incredible to think about for the early 20th 00:06:49.310 --> 00:06:51.290 century. He even published his own magazine in 00:06:51.290 --> 00:06:54.129 1913. It was called Magazine and Beauty Hints. 00:06:54.449 --> 00:06:56.870 Julian Elting was basically an early 20th century 00:06:56.870 --> 00:07:00.290 beauty influencer, a male performer selling literal 00:07:00.290 --> 00:07:03.089 cosmetic and fashion advice to women. Exactly. 00:07:03.129 --> 00:07:04.930 Women were buying his magazine to learn how to 00:07:04.930 --> 00:07:07.610 dress and do their makeup. It's wild. Yeah. And 00:07:07.610 --> 00:07:10.209 he wasn't alone. On the West Coast, you had Bothwell 00:07:10.209 --> 00:07:12.509 Brown dominating the circus. Right, Brown even 00:07:12.509 --> 00:07:15.410 starred in the 1919 film Yankee Doodle in Berlin. 00:07:15.709 --> 00:07:17.629 And it crossed racial barriers too, right? Even 00:07:17.629 --> 00:07:20.149 in a heavily segregated landscape, you had... 00:07:19.980 --> 00:07:22.519 African -American comedians like Andrew Tribble 00:07:22.519 --> 00:07:25.540 finding major success on Broadway and in Black 00:07:25.540 --> 00:07:28.000 Vaudeville. They were celebrated. They were wealthy. 00:07:28.259 --> 00:07:31.220 It was really a golden age for the female illusionists. 00:07:31.319 --> 00:07:33.160 But then, and this is the really sobering part 00:07:33.160 --> 00:07:36.019 of the deep dive, if they were these massive 00:07:36.019 --> 00:07:39.540 Broadway superstars and influencers, what caused 00:07:39.540 --> 00:07:42.920 the decline? Why did it stop? Well, the cultural 00:07:42.920 --> 00:07:45.980 tide turned. We enter the progressive era. And 00:07:45.980 --> 00:07:48.560 the progressive era brought a huge cultural backlash. 00:07:48.819 --> 00:07:51.699 What's fascinating here is how quickly the law 00:07:51.699 --> 00:07:54.819 and public opinion can turn on an art form. The 00:07:54.819 --> 00:07:57.139 decline happened because female impersonation 00:07:57.139 --> 00:07:59.500 started becoming heavily associated in the public 00:07:59.500 --> 00:08:02.060 eye with sex work and homosexuality. And society 00:08:02.060 --> 00:08:04.019 was panicking about that. Absolutely panicking. 00:08:04.279 --> 00:08:06.720 In the 20th century, it became strictly criminal 00:08:06.720 --> 00:08:09.620 in many American cities to be homosexual or even 00:08:09.620 --> 00:08:12.240 for LGBTQ people to congregate in public. Just 00:08:12.240 --> 00:08:15.339 to exist together in a room was illegal. So what 00:08:15.339 --> 00:08:17.160 does this all mean? Going back to our definition 00:08:17.160 --> 00:08:19.459 at the start of the deep dive, it means that 00:08:19.459 --> 00:08:22.339 the stage performance became a massive liability. 00:08:22.519 --> 00:08:26.699 A legal hazard. To survive legally and just to 00:08:26.699 --> 00:08:30.839 keep working in these non LGBTQ nightclubs, female 00:08:30.839 --> 00:08:34.320 impersonators had to make a concerted overt effort 00:08:34.320 --> 00:08:37.360 to present themselves as distinctly heterosexual. 00:08:37.519 --> 00:08:38.779 They had to prove they were straight just to 00:08:38.779 --> 00:08:41.419 put on a show. Exactly. I want to emphasize the 00:08:41.419 --> 00:08:44.039 stakes here for you listening. Right up until 00:08:44.039 --> 00:08:47.039 the 1970s, distancing this performance art from 00:08:47.039 --> 00:08:50.240 queer identity wasn't just like an artistic choice 00:08:50.240 --> 00:08:53.720 or a PR move. Right. It was a necessary literal 00:08:53.720 --> 00:08:56.580 survival tactic to avoid criminal charges and 00:08:56.580 --> 00:08:58.519 going to jail. That is just so heavy. You have 00:08:58.519 --> 00:09:01.500 artists forced to curate fake personas off stage 00:09:01.500 --> 00:09:03.659 just so they won't be arrested for the illusion 00:09:03.659 --> 00:09:05.679 they create on stage. Yeah. It really puts the 00:09:05.679 --> 00:09:07.759 entire history into perspective. It does. It 00:09:07.759 --> 00:09:09.799 shows how vulnerable the performers were. the 00:09:09.799 --> 00:09:12.039 winds of the law. Well as we wrap up this deep 00:09:12.039 --> 00:09:14.860 dive I want to remind you, the listener, that 00:09:14.860 --> 00:09:17.139 the next time you see theatrical gender performance 00:09:17.139 --> 00:09:19.080 you're not just looking at a costume or a character. 00:09:19.279 --> 00:09:21.659 No, you're looking at a deeply layered history. 00:09:21.960 --> 00:09:24.940 Exactly. You are looking at an art form shaped 00:09:24.940 --> 00:09:28.039 by ancient religious rights, completely scarred 00:09:28.039 --> 00:09:31.179 by 19th century American racism, elevated by 00:09:31.179 --> 00:09:34.279 vaudeville superstars, and tempered by the harsh 00:09:34.279 --> 00:09:36.600 punitive legal realities of the 20th century. 00:09:36.779 --> 00:09:39.159 It's all of that woven together. And I want to 00:09:39.159 --> 00:09:40.980 leave you with one final question to ponder today. 00:09:40.980 --> 00:09:44.789 I'll lay it on us. If female impersonation historically 00:09:44.789 --> 00:09:47.950 shifted from, you know, a religious obligation 00:09:47.950 --> 00:09:50.990 to a tool for mockery to celebrated beauty illusion 00:09:50.990 --> 00:09:53.590 and finally to a forced heterosexual survival 00:09:53.590 --> 00:09:56.490 tactic. Right. What does the stage performance 00:09:56.490 --> 00:09:59.090 of gender actually tell us about the anxieties 00:09:59.090 --> 00:10:01.389 and desires of the audience watching it rather 00:10:01.389 --> 00:10:04.870 than the person performing it? Wow. Are we judging 00:10:04.870 --> 00:10:07.610 the actor or are we just staring at our own societal 00:10:07.610 --> 00:10:10.309 reflection? That is a fantastic thought to leave 00:10:10.309 --> 00:10:12.009 on. Thank you so much for joining us on this 00:10:12.009 --> 00:10:14.049 deep dive and keep questioning what you see in 00:10:14.049 --> 00:10:14.289 the mirror.