In 2020, an education journal published “Drag Pedagogy: The Playful Practice of Queer Imagination in Early Childhood,” an article written by a male drag performer who helps run Drag Queen Story Hour [DQSH] and a trans-identified female who taught elementary school before becoming an education professor with a focus on gender and sexuality. 

The two authors, Little Miss Hot Mess and Harper B. Keenan, presented “drag pedagogy” as a term referring to the ways in which drag performers at events like DQSH could teach children to live “queerer” lives. 

As of June 2023, Google Scholar showed that at least 37 scholarly pieces from different journals, college programs, and countries had cited the original drag pedagogy article. Google Scholar said it has been cited in 38 pieces, but one article was listed twice. 

Eight of the pieces were not obtained,¹ but of the 29 pieces that were, 27 only cited the original drag pedagogy article in a supportive light.² 

The remaining two articles used a more neutral approach where they laid out what people from different sides of the aisle were arguing, although one of these ultimately leaned in favor of mixing drag performers and children. 

None of the 29 articles obtained outright rejected drag pedagogy. 

Since academia has failed to critique drag pedagogy, my article was written to inform readers of the issues lurking within drag pedagogy and raise concerns about its acceptance within academia. 

In the original article, drag pedagogy was positioned in opposition to nuclear families. The original article also presented it as a good thing that drag pedagogy would break kids away from “reproductive futures,” a term used to describe the willingness to make present sacrifices for future gains and is often associated with choosing to become a parent. 

The objections to existing nuclear families and discouragement of future reproduction might raise questions as to what is meant by the oxymoron-sounding “family friendly drag show,” but an answer was provided. 

“It may be that DSQH is ‘family friendly,’ in the sense that it is accessible and inviting to families with children, but it is less a sanitizing source than a preparatory introduction to alternative modes of kinship,” read the drag pedagogy article. “Here, DQSH is ‘family friendly’ in the sense of ‘family’ as an old-school queer code to identify and connect with other queers on the street.” 

Incidentally, drag families, groups of drag performers who help each other succeed in the world of drag, were mentioned in a positive light in the original drag pedagogy article. There was a consistent lack of concern in the other academic articles as to what drag families, “alternative modes of kinship,” and “identifying and connecting with other queers on the street” might imply in the context of elementary schools or DQSH events. In the earlier sections of the original drag pedagogy article, it was suggested that drag performers were well-suited to connect with children due to a shared love of “bright colors, music, art, and imaginative play.” While the groups may share those interests, drag performers act them out in a sexually explicit manner. Moreover, kids do not need drag performers as children should have friends, family members, and teachers who can engage those interests in an age-appropriate manner without “alternative modes of kinship.” 

The “imaginative play” aspect of drag pedagogy fed into claims that drag pedagogy was meant to produce free-thinking children in a way other forms of teaching children failed to do. However, despite claiming to value “free-thinking,” the piece rested on assumptions that implementing drag pedagogy would and should “invite children into building communities that are more hospitable to queer knowledge and experience.” 

This seems to create the sort of “free-thinking” I have seen in colleges like my own; people are free to think about being “nonbinary furries” or “born in the wrong body,” but disagreement with such ideas results in spiels on how having a different opinion shows a lack of independent thinking and far-right brainwashing. It’s a one-way street where any thoughts “queerer” than present ideas are free but stopping or reversing are off-limits. Drag pedagogy will not actually encourage true mental freedom as it expects kids to subscribe to queer ideas. 

Five additional values put forth by drag pedagogy were rule-breaking, pleasure, desire, short-term satisfaction and suppressed shame. Unlike their claims to value “free-thinking,” drag pedagogy and DQSH are consistent with those five values. 

Yes, some of these traits may be beneficial in particular cases (a kid might break a no-talking rule during a test to alert the teacher of a bloody nose). However, those five traits do not make for good general principles (after the devious licks Tik Tok trend began encouraging kids to break rules surrounding property ownership for short-term thrills, I heard of schools being left without soap for a month during a period when people were concerned enough about Covid-19 to mandate masks). 

Stealing soap is not the only thing those five traits might lead to someone doing. It’s a sad truth, but the Internet makes adult content readily accessible to both adults and minors; those five values would likely encourage abusing this access rather than maintaining self-control. Members of both sexes have reported ties between their consumption of pornography and the emergence of dysphoria, and it seems wrong of all these academic articles to ignore mechanisms by which drag pedagogy and its values could create cases of minors struggling to accept their sex. 

The values put forth by drag pedagogy can also be viewed as red flags towards the sort of adults who might want to spread those values and demonstrate queer living to children. No, drag performers as a whole do not engage inappropriately with children, but there have been issues with DQSH performers who do. 

Moreover, in the original article and one other, time was taken to address concerns that drag performances might lose their “edge” if they become mainstream or targeted toward children. Rather than focus on concerns surrounding cases of DQSH performers charged with sexual crimes against minors or the long-term damage sexualized performances might cause for kids viewing them, the concern was that the drag would not be risqué enough. 

While most articles did not raise concerns about drag losing its edge, there was still a general trend of not addressing or readily dismissing concerns about safeguarding children. Early and/or traumatic sexual encounters appear to cause feelings of dysphoria to develop and persist for boys and girls. Again, this raises the question of why academic articles claiming to want to help those with dysphoria would encourage early exposure to sexual performances like drag. 

Some of the failure to challenge drag pedagogy likely stems from assumptions that mixing drag performers and children would offer extra benefits to “LGBT+ youth.”³

However, drag pedagogy seems especially dangerous to youths likely to grow up to be LGB. 

Kids who express a desire to be the other sex have historically become same-sex attracted adults who accept their own body’s sex if raised as a member of their sex and allowed their natural puberty. Short-term pleasure and desire are the sorts of values that would lead to medicalizing these kids instead of encouraging them to spend time and effort accepting themselves as members of their sex. 

Furthermore, children lack mentalizing, an ability that would help them understand that they can display cross-sex behaviors while remaining a member of their sex. As those who grow up to be LGB often display more cross-sex behaviors as children, early exposure to gender ideology would leave them vulnerable to concluding that they need to transition based on sex stereotypes. 

While some may argue that the little kids at DQSH do not have to worry about medical transitioning yet, social transitioning is associated with persistent dysphoria, meaning that concerns should be raised even before puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries are introduced into the mix. As drag pedagogy encourages short-term pleasure, teaches about non-sex identities, and pushes acceptance of kids taking on a non-sex identity, it seems plausible that drag pedagogy is yet another step down a slippery slope. 

The original piece also made claims that drag pedagogy would help fight white supremacy/racism, and at least twelve articles citing it made claims that drag pedagogy would fight racism/colonialism/white supremacy/offer extra benefits to students of color, especially those identifying as trans and/or queer.⁴ 

Even after reading the pieces, I’m still not sure how exactly researchers think dressing in drag and reading to children is supposed to change attitudes about race or alter international relations. The best explanation I could think of would be that DQSH would make the West and any white families taking their kids to such events look bad. However, I am confident this is not what academia wants me to think as my explanation hinges on my belief that mixing children with drag performers is an idea others should look down upon. 

While not as extreme, the idea that exposing children to drag performances would prevent them from becoming racist does seem similar to a post-WWII German psychologist's idea that fostering boys with known homosexual pedophiles would prevent the boys from becoming Nazis. Helmut Kentler, the psychologist, was convinced that sexual repression led to fascism and managed to convince the government to let him implement his idea. 

While the foster boys did not become Nazis, they developed a host of other mental issues due to experiencing childhoods full of sexual abuse. Some of the boys even came to believe that an adult man having sex with his foster sons was normal, which could create a vicious cycle if left unaddressed. There are better ways to prevent kids from harming others than involving them in sexual activities. 

Talk of the German foster care experiment was not to be found in the academic articles, suggesting that the academics supporting drag pedagogy are either unaware of or unwilling to acknowledge that a more extreme version of their idea has already been tried and had disastrous consequences. 

Perhaps some of the unwillingness to question ideas like drag pedagogy comes from the belief that not providing chances for kids to interact with drag performers will result in the kids later committing suicide, an idea explicitly expressed by a supporter of DQSH.

It seemed likely that this belief is an extension of “Would you rather have a dead son or a living daughter,” a question used to manipulate parents into transitioning their children. The idea that early exposure to drag performers is lifesaving appeared to be even less supported than the claim that transitioning children saves lives as neither the DQSH-supporter nor the researchers quoting the supporter offered any studies on the correlation between early drag exposure and suicide. 

Furthermore, if dysphoria is a major driver of suicidality, then efforts to minimize the spread of the social contagion and to help those already with dysphoria desist seem like better approaches to alleviating the mental strains that come with rejecting something as fundamental as one’s sex⁵ than having drag performances for children. 

It seems that drag pedagogy is praised by those looking for a queerer future, something likely to entail a further breakdown of family bonds, confusion over sexual dimorphism, and lower safeguards surrounding children. The failure of 29 articles from academia to strongly object to drag pedagogy is of concern, especially considering that 27 of the articles framed it positively. 

“We’re dressing up, we’re shaking our hips, and we’re finding our light – even in the fluorescents,” concluded the original drag pedagogy article. “We’re reading books while we read each other’s looks, and we’re leaving a trail of glitter that won’t ever come out of the carpet.” 

It’s true – DQSH and drag pedagogy have already come to be. The paper trail has already spread to at least 37 scholarly articles, most of which willingly bombed their carpets with glitter. Don’t get dragged along – keep the glitter trail contained, invest in a strong vacuum, and all else fails, replace the carpets. 

Notes

1. The following eight articles were not obtained as they were behind a paywall and the writer’s inter-library loan system was unable to locate them: 

a. Burkholder, C., Thorpe, A., & Swell, P. (2022). Facilitating gender-affirming participatory visual research in embodied and online spaces. Visual 

Studies, 37(1-2), 33-46. 

b. Coleman, J. J., Schey, R., Blackburn, M. V., Brochin, C., Cooper-Novack, G., Crawley, S. A., Cruz, C., Dutro, E., Helton, J., Islam, A., Jiménez, I., Lizárraga, J. R., Schrodes, A., Simon, R., Wickens, C. M., & Young, C. A. (2022). 

Intergenerational queer method (ologie) s: Dialogues in literacy research. Literacy Research: Theory, Method, and Practice, 71(1), 249-267. 

c. Gutzwa, J. A., & Owis, B. (2023). Transgressing educational divides: Building bridges between K-12 and postsecondary trans studies. In Bridging the Rainbow Gap (pp. 151-171). Brill. 

d. Kennedy, B. C. (2023). Abutments and arches: Complicating the bridges between and beyond trans studies in K-16 education—A response to “Transgressing Educational Divides: Building Bridges between K-12 and Postsecondary Trans Studies”. In Bridging the Rainbow Gap (pp. 172-176). Brill. 

e. Ortega, A. A., & Hernández, C. (2022). Narrativas educativas en torno a la equidad de género en la primera infancia. Infancias Imágenes, 21(2), 180-190.

f. Ruppert, J., Roque, R., & Shapiro, R. B. (2022). Opportunities and challenges for enacting equity and justice-centered CS learning in “Drag vs. AI” workshops. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference of the Learning 

Sciences-ICLS 2022, pp. 2052-2053. International Society of the Learning Sciences. 

g. Stiegler, S., & Slovin, L. J. (2023). Can the drag queen turn back time to give advice to her younger self?.Journal of LGBT Youth, 1-23. 

h. Storm, S. (2023). Aesthetic Literacies: A Multi-Method Study of Youth Textual Interpretation and Social Justice in a Digital Learning Ecology (Doctoral dissertation, New York University). 

2. The following 27 articles cited the drag pedagogy article in a positive light (both citations are included for the article that was listed twice): 

a. Davies, A. W., & Joy, P. (2022). Queerness and aueer subjectivities in home economics: Navigating and disrupting the helping professions in higher education. Equity & Excellence in Education, 1-16. 

b. DiMuzio*, S. H. (2022). Safe space vs. free speech: Unpacking a higher education curriculum controversy. Journal of Curriculum and Pedagogy, 1-25. c. Dozono, T. (2023). Queer of color literacies as subversive reading practice: How queer students of color subvert power in the classroom. Equity & Excellence in Education, 56(1-2), 28-41. 

d. Gallardo, D. (2021). In ixtli in yóllotl: A pedagogy of belonging: Cultivating radical imaginaries for Indigenous queer futures. (Doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia). 

e. Hartman, A., Hoessler, B., Tom, V., & Camman, C. (2022). Identity as a compass when navigating uncharted equitable spaces: Our queer evaluation practices. New Directions for Evaluation, 2022(175), 53-73. 

f. Huertas-Abril, C. A., & Palacios-Hidalgo, F. J. (2023). LGBTIQ+ education for making teaching inclusive? Voices of teachers from all around the 

world. Environment and Social Psychology, 8(1). 

g. Kasparek, N. (2022). Playfully studious teaching as a reparative affective replacement for microfascism. Journal of Curriculum and Pedagogy, 1-21. h. Keenan, H. (2021). Keep yourself alive: Welcoming the next generation of queer and trans educators. Occasional Paper Series, 2021(45), 12. 

i. Kitzie, V., Floegel, D., Barriage, S., & Oltmann, S. M. (2022). How visibility, hypervisibility, and invisibility shape library staff and drag performer perceptions of and experiences with drag storytimes in public libraries. The Library Quarterly, 92(3), 215-240. 

j. Leonardi, B., & Moses, M. S. (2021). Understanding democratic education policy queerly: Toward a queer democratic framework. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 29(January-July), 90-90. 

k. Mangin, M. M., Keenan, H. B., Meyer, E. J., McQuillan, M. T., Suárez, M. I., & Iskander, L. (2022). Editors’ introduction: Toward trans studies in K–12 education. Educational Researcher, 51(5), 302-306. 

l. Mayberry, T. (2022). Queen of the Academy: Academic Drag as Pedagogy and Praxis.

m. Mclean, L. (2023). Explaining and approaching eco-anxiety: A theoretical and auto-ethnographic exploration of minds in climate crisis (Doctoral dissertation, Open Access Te Herenga Waka-Victoria University of Wellington). 

n. Mendoza, C. D. (2021). Drag and drag studies. In Encyclopedia of Queer Studies in Education (pp. 153-157). Brill. 

o. Moore, A. R. (2021). A plea to stop debating and erasing queer lives in ELT. ELT Journal, 75(3), 362-365. 

p. Pacini-Ketchabaw, V., & MacAlpine, K. A. (2022). Queer synthetic curriculum for the Chthulucene: Common worlding waste pedagogies. Catalyst: Feminism, Theory, Technoscience, 8(1). 

q. Rahmat, A., & Arbarini, M. (2022). Analysis of readiness to organize learning from home for early childhood during the COVID 19 pandemic period in Indonesia. Webology, 19(1), 2038-2053. 

r. Reid, S. (2023). Using a queer of color critique to work toward a black LGBTQ+ inclusive K–12 curriculum. Curriculum Inquiry, 53(2), 105-125. 

s. Shrodes, A. (2021). Disidentification. In Encyclopedia of Queer Studies in Education (pp. 148-152). Brill. 

t. Shrodes, A. (2022). Learning practices of livability toward elsewheres: Critical digital literacies in the everyday activities of trans and queer Yyouth (Doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University). 

u. Simon, R. Standing on the shoulders of GIaNTs: Drawing queer and trans education possibilities together (Doctoral dissertation). 

v. Skelton, J. W. (2022). Standing on the shoulders of GIaNTs: drawing queer and trans education possibilities together (Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto (Canada)). 

w. Snaider, C. (2023). Gender Policy-as-Practice with Young Children: The Politics of Gender-Justice in Early Childhood Education (Doctoral dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University). 

x. Souto-Manning, M., Emerson, A. C., Marcel, G., Rabadi-Raol, A., & Turner, A. (2022). Democratizing creative early educational experiences: A matter of racial justice. Review of Research in Education, 46(1), 1-31. 

y. Storm, S. (2023). Queering the system: Lessons for schools from youths’ queer aestetics in role-playing games. Theory, Research, and action in Urban Education. 

z. Tommy, D. L. (2022). Dear Little Tommy: Or, my actual love letter to my seven-year-old self. Examining Committee Membership, 219. 

aa. Whitford, A. (2022). Understanding and addressing gender stereotypes with elementary children: The promise of an integrated approach. Theory & Research in Social Education, 1-32. 

bb. Zhao, X., & Angleton, C. (2022). Critical identity literacy with young learners: Exploring gender and race at the intersection of social studies and visual arts. Social Studies and the Young Learner, 35(1), 19-25. 

3. Youths cannot be LGB nor should they take on a non-sex identity. There are certain traits that predict a potential future LGB orientation, but kids with these traits would not be LGB yet as they do not have developed sexualities. Even in the case of an adolescent who feels lust and romantic love, they still shouldn’t be seen as a fully-fledged member of the LGB community as more time is needed for mental maturity to develop so that feelings of love can be acted on responsibly. Considering the different responses to teen pregnancies versus adult ones, this is not a double standard; there is also the belief that straight adolescents should not fully live out their sexuality yet. As for taking on a non-sex identity, it is explored elsewhere in the article that kids lack traits like mentalizing needed to communicate what they want and that most kids who wish to leave their sex will grow up to be gay if raised as their sex and allowed their natural puberty. Moreover, if a minor can not consent to having their body touched, it seems impossible that they would be able to consent to blocking their puberty with Lupron, suffering vaginal atrophy with testosterone, stunting their sexual development with estrogen, or undergoing surgeries to remove/mutilate sex organs. 

4. The following twelve articles recycled claims that drag pedagogy would fight white supremacy/racism/colonialism/offer extra benefits to students of color, especially those who are “queer or trans:” 

a. DiMuzio*, S. H. (2022). Safe space vs. free speech: Unpacking a higher education curriculum controversy. Journal of Curriculum and Pedagogy, 1-25. b. Dozono, T. (2023). Queer of color literacies as subversive reading practice: How queer students of color subvert power in the classroom. Equity & Excellence in Education, 56(1-2), 28-41. 

c. Gallardo, D. (2021). In ixtli in yóllotl: A pedagogy of belonging: Cultivating radical imaginaries for Indigenous queer futures. (Doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia). 

d. Leonardi, B., & Moses, M. S. (2021). Understanding democratic education policy queerly: Toward a queer democratic framework. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 29(January-July), 90-90. 

e. Mangin, M. M., Keenan, H. B., Meyer, E. J., McQuillan, M. T., Suárez, M. I., & Iskander, L. (2022). Editors’ introduction: Toward trans studies in K–12 education. Educational Researcher, 51(5), 302-306. 

f. Mayberry, T. (2022). Queen of the Academy: Academic Drag as Pedagogy and Praxis. 

g. Reid, S. (2023). Using a queer of color critique to work toward a black LGBTQ+ inclusive K–12 curriculum. Curriculum Inquiry, 53(2), 105-125. 

h. Shrodes, A. (2021). Disidentification. In Encyclopedia of Queer Studies in Education (pp. 148-152). Brill. 

i. Shrodes, A. (2022). Learning practices of livability toward elsewheres: Critical digital literacies in the everyday activities of trans and queer Yyouth (Doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University). 

j. Skelton, J. W. (2022). Standing on the shoulders of GIaNTs: drawing queer and trans education possibilities together (Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto (Canada)). 

k. Snaider, C. (2023). Gender Policy-as-Practice with Young Children: The Politics of Gender-Justice in Early Childhood Education (Doctoral dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University).

l. Souto-Manning, M., Emerson, A. C., Marcel, G., Rabadi-Raol, A., & Turner, A. (2022). Democratizing creative early educational experiences: A matter of racial justice. Review of Research in Education, 46(1), 1-31. 

5. For humans, sex is a developmental pathway toward the production of sperm or eggs that begins in utero. While sex characteristics change naturally with age and can bemanipulated with hormones/surgeries, the reproductive pathway one went down in uterocannot be altered.

Read More: WoLF Tracks

Contributors to WoLF Tracks have provided permission to share their content. While WoLF does not necessarily endorse all of the content in WoLF Tracks, we value our members' contributions and request revisions or edits to improve readability. Please read our User Generated Content policy for more information on community content. Learn more about WoLF membership here.