Um… none of the things they listed have barriers to entry. You can take classes for them, and for something athletic like Lion Dancing it’s recommended to at least have some gymnastics training so you don’t get hurt, but you aren’t required to in order to perform.

Same with things like painting or playing instruments. Do you think Yo Yo Ma has a license to play his cello or something? Or Van Gogh had a painter’s license? He didn’t even have much formal training, for heaven’s sake. Do you also think their works are ‘low skill’? Would you object to Yo Yo Ma reading to kids?

Pretty much all art has no barrier to entry. What matters is how hard you work at it and how skilled you can become. And drag, as a performance art, is work.

Anyways, where did you get this weird idea that only things with a proper ‘barrier to entry’ (which, historically, has been expensive schooling that denies minorities proper access, btw—see what’s going on with PoC and trying to work exclusively with braiding textured hair, for example) is the only way to judge quality or worth? Why can’t art especially be judged on its own merits?

…And, um, did I read that right? You don’t like it when people empathize with others? Or are kind to others?