@Fruitandbarley1 actually those are more offensive that what I was envisioning.
I'm sure I've seen drag performers who wear utterly andogrenous costumes, inflated shapes and so on. That's the sort of thing I'd love to see the artform evolve into, the performer creating a live, one person, grotesque or beautiful but more than human spectacle using their body, voice and movement.
As far as I'm concerned, anything that involves a man wearing makeup, dresses/skirts, heels or anything else culturally coded as feminine, or moving in ways that are typically considered girly while portraying a male character with a male body sounds great.
It's when they cross the line and say they are portraying a woman (who is of course not actually a real woman but someone they invented), refer to themselves in character as she and pad their body to represent female I think they move to dodgy ground simply because the cultural context in which it's being done has such a deep history of men silencing, defining and speaking for women that it's almost impossible now for that to be a neutral or benign act.
I think it's also because drag includes improv so it's not just portraying a character that's been written, it is assuming the character, reacting as "she" would. Again it feels like the man taking on an authority about how women think and feel which in reality he does not have. He's never for a second known from the inside how it feel to be going through life as a woman, only observed and assumed from the outside.
I realise this could be an argument for no-one ever making art that is not biographical. I don’t believe that. I think there is space in all art for making art from what you believe us another's perspective. What I'm not convinced about is the benigness of an entire artform whose basis is the single scenario of men portraying their idea of women.