FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Criticisms of Brigham Morris Young
Characteristics of Church Leaders |
|
Succession of the President of the Church |
|
Criticisms related to Church leaders |
|
Doctrine and official statements |
|
Other |
Brigham Morris Young and Travesti
Summary: In recent discussions—particularly online—it has become common to describe Brigham Morris Young, the son of Brigham Young, as a “drag queen.” The label is usually applied because Young occasionally performed in women’s attire in late nineteenth-century theatrical productions. While the description may appear superficially plausible to modern audiences, it is historically misleading and relies on an anachronistic application of contemporary categories that did not exist in Young’s time.
A careful examination of Brigham Morris Young’s life, performances, and historical context shows that calling him a “drag queen” distorts both his intentions and the cultural meaning of his actions.
Who was Brigham Morris Young?
Brigham Morris Young (1874–1955) was a performer, theater manager, and cultural figure in early twentieth-century Utah. He is best remembered for his involvement in stage productions where he sometimes portrayed female characters—most notably under the stage persona “Madam Pattirini,” a comedic character inspired by popular theatrical tropes of the era.
Was Brigham Morris Young a "drag queen"?
Young was not attempting to challenge gender norms, express a gender identity, or participate in what is now understood as drag culture. He was a professional entertainer working within well-established conventions of Victorian and Edwardian theater.
Long before modern drag culture emerged, men portraying female characters was a common theatrical practice. In Shakespearean theater, all female roles were originally played by men or boys. In nineteenth-century vaudeville, minstrel shows, and comic operas, exaggerated female caricatures performed by men were a standard comedic device.
Brigham Morris Young’s performances fall squarely within this tradition. His portrayals were comedic, theatrical, and intentionally exaggerated for entertainment purposes. They were not expressions of personal gender identity and were not understood as such by others who lived during the same time period.
To retroactively frame these performances as “drag” in the modern sense imposes meanings that would have been foreign to both the performer and his audience.
The term “drag queen,” as it is understood today, emerged in the twentieth century within specific subcultures associated with LGBTQ identity, gender performance, and social critique. Modern drag is often tied to ideas of gender fluidity, self-expression, and political commentary.
None of these frameworks applies to Brigham Morris Young’s performances. There is no evidence that he identified with—or would have recognized—such categories. His stage persona existed entirely within the bounds of conventional, mainstream entertainment of his day.
Using the term “drag queen” to describe Young therefore conflates two fundamentally different things: historical theatrical cross-dressing and modern drag performance.
At the heart of the issue is anachronism—the error of assigning modern concepts, identities, or language to people in the past. While it is tempting to interpret history through the lens of the present, doing so often obscures truth more than it helps us to find it.
Labeling Brigham Morris Young a “drag queen” suggests motivations, identities, and cultural meanings that are unsupported by the historical record. It risks misleading readers into believing that Young was participating in a movement or identity category that did not yet exist.
Serious historical analysis requires that we recognize that two activities may look alike on the surface while belonging to entirely different cultural worlds.
This issue is not merely about definitions. Describing Young inaccurately can be used to score modern political or religious points, particularly in discussions of early Latter-day Saint leaders and their families. Such framing often says more about the debates themselves rather than about the historical figures themselves.
Using historically precise language does not diminish the reality of modern drag culture, nor does it deny that men have long performed female roles on stage. It simply respects the contextual boundaries that separate the past from the present.
Brigham Morris Young was a theater performer who occasionally portrayed female characters as part of a well-established comedic tradition. He was not a “drag queen” in any historically meaningful sense of the term. Applying that label retroactively is anachronistic and distorts both Young’s life and the cultural practices of his era. A more accurate understanding recognizes his performances for what they were: mainstream theatrical entertainment, not expressions of modern gender identity or drag culture. If history is to be understood rather than repurposed, it must be described on its own terms.