Unpopular opinions you hold — Page 46

Kad said: "Can one fairly describe themselves as not being a fan if they don't really know what ballroom is?"

I believe you've made an incorrect assumption regarding what I do/didn't previously know about ballroom. This conversation has expounded on my previous information, not introduced the subject from scratch.

So, "yes"... I still am very comfortable saying that I'm not a fan. I'm also very confident in saying that no one needs me to be.

But that doesn't mean I don't appreciate or enjoy absorbing more information about it.

Updated On: 5/14/26 at 11:11 AM

TheatreFan4 said: "Drag as it's used in a ball, is not particularly how you would use it to refer to Drag Queens. Anything you wear or portray is your Drag."

...and again - many thanks! This conversation has been a ball! (see what I did there?)

While I am no expert on Ball culture, I think you're missing the forest for the trees. You're trying to impose a strict, current definition of "drag" upon a scene that didn't have such strict definitions as we do now. Ball culture was compromised of trans women, and others outside the gender norm, joyously celebrating themselves, as themselves -- labels are kinda erroneous. And yes, within that, they called what they were wearing as their *drag* -- but not within the strict sense of being a drag queen. But in the time of "Paris Is Burning" (and to an extent, still today) it's easier to relate more foreign concepts of gender identity as being "drag", as opposed to the way the more vast landscape of gender expression those outside the mainstream would understand. Of course, as humans, we love heuristics, but sometimes those fail to capture the entirety of expression and experience -- and that's something Ball culture fully embraces. I guess I fail to see your hangup.

If any cultural appropriation has happened with this production, it's felines being represented as human.

Updated On: 5/23/26 at 03:57 AM

John, I really respect your opinions and insights but I have to admit I’m really confounded by your take on this. While Paris is Burning is the major cultural touchstone of ball culture, it’s also from over three decades ago (and TheatreFan4 is correct: trans women make up most of the subjects of the documentary and are rather explicitly depicted as trans or female-identifying even within the confines of the language and understanding of the time it was filmed. There’s also considerable focus on ballroom performers who are cisgender men whose “drag” and “realness” consists of convincingly performing regular masculine roles. There are essentially few, if any, performative drag queens in the vein of RuPaul, Lady Bunny, et al in the documentary).


But putting Paris is Burning aside, Jellicle Ball isn’t a period piece- it’s set in today’s ballroom. And it’s been created with considerable input and with the participation of several generations of ballroom performers. So who exactly is appropriating here? This isn’t Madonna grabbing dance moves and jargon from a community she doesn’t belong to.

Kad said: "While Paris is Burning is the major cultural touchstone of ball culture, it’s also from over three decades ago (and TheatreFan4 is correct: trans women make up most of the subjects of the documentary and are rather explicitly depicted as trans or female-identifying even within the confines of the language and understanding of the time it was filmed."

Yes, it's over three decades ago, and I thought I was being careful to accentuate my view that "times have progressed (changed)", but It's the bolded phrase where I think differently.

I agree that "TheatreFan4 is correct: trans women make up most of the subjects of the documentary", but I still hold to my recollection of that era regarding what language was commonly in practice, at that time.

As I recall, "trans women" were (technically) those who had undergone surgery (like Christine Jorgensen), whereas "drag queens" relied more on costuming and make-up to display their femininity.

Additionally, in the 80s, people were not as conscious of how to respectfully, and accurately refer to, and acknowledge our population as we are today. As an exemplary "sign of the times", I think about the Gay flag and how many colors have been added since the 80s - not to mention all the additional alphabet letters that now represent our acronym (which at this point, I'm never 100% certain I'm always being completely inclusive of).

As I remember (and I'm very open to the possibility that my memory is is perhaps tainted with age), it was more commonplace (and certainly easier) to use inaccurate, or inappropriate "bucket" identifiers like "drag queen" to lump members of the community who looked or behaved similarly into a single "bucket". I pointed to the language used in those cited wiki articles as an example.

"There’s also considerable focus on ballroom performers who are cisgender men whose “drag” and “realness” consists of convincingly performing regular masculine roles. There are essentially few, if any, performative drag queens in the vein of RuPaul, Lady Bunny, et al in the documentary)."

Now, see... You're using the phrase "cisgender men", which few, if anyone would have understood in the 80s. Times have changed and progressed.

TBH, I'm a little unclear if you're saying that the cisgender men are ballroom performers in the film "Paris is Burning", or in CATS (?) If it's the movie, I definitely need to give it a re-watch. It's been decades since I've watched it.

"But putting Paris is Burning aside, Jellicle Ball isn’t a period piece- it’s set in today’s ballroom. And it’s been created with considerable input and with the participation of several generations of ballroom performers. So who exactly is appropriating here?"

Yes, I know and agree. I want to re-emphasize that I wrote: "If there are no, or few who identify as drag queens at the Jellicle Ball, then the Ball could be (not is, or must be) seen as an example of cultural appropriation."

"Cultural appropriation" in that the balls literally originated as "drag balls", and later participants were referred to (incorrectly or not) as "drag queens".

If the performers in "CATS" are utilizing those stylizations, but don't identify similarly as those who created the art form, it could be interpreted as cultural appropriation.

This is the "Unpopular Opinions" thread, so I'm comfortable calling in on that chip.

John, at this point I genuinely don't know what you're arguing. Do you believe Jellicle Ball is appropriative? Or do you merely believe somebody hypothetically could?

Updated On: 5/23/26 at 12:38 PM