"Joe E. Jeffreys, a drag historian at N.Y.U., told me that academics are having a field day with 'the representation of America' in the show..."

"With its 'fun-house-mirror magnification' of social codes, 'Drag Race' is a bonanza for scholars.[*] It’s been the subject of multiple academic anthologies. Jeffreys teaches a semester-long class called 'RuPaul’s Drag Race and Its Impact.' Students study the history of American drag, going back to vaudeville, and spend weeks examining how 'Drag Race' handles topics such as gender, race, class, body image, fashion, and ethnicity. They unpack slang terms like 'hog body' (an unfeminine physique) and 'hunty' (a term of endearment). The course lasts fifteen weeks, but, Jeffreys said, 'We’re really just scratching the surface.'"

From "Can 'RuPaul’s Drag Race' Save Us from Donald Trump?" by Lizzie Widdicombe in The New Yorker. The headline promises more than the (short) article can deliver. All there is about Trump is the observation that he contributes to the impression that American politics is a reality show and — at the end — the assertion that "Growing up in the Trump era is 'forcing kids to mature much faster.'"

I'm more interested in the idea that college students are taking semester-long courses on the topic of drag, taught by academics who are finding enough material to write about in a scholarly way, and that the writing has piled up to the point where there are multiple anthologies. I don't think the article states a single idea that sounds academic.
___________________

* Ironically, "Bonanza" is a drag race for scholars. This footnote is not part of the New Yorker article but an original insight by me, Ann Althouse, and I note that the characters on "Bonanza" were famous for always wearing the same clothes and that these were stereotypically manly clothes (other than, perhaps, the high heels worn by Little Joe, who was considered, at 5'9", too little even to be the one with the name "Little").