When Julie J glides into Gran Torino in Brooklyn, she wears a silken headscarf and a Missy Elliott sweatshirt and has Alexis Bittar hoops dangling from her ears. Many might recognize the drag artist, writer, and actress from her journey through the “Bittarverse” over the last year and half, playing the long-suffering Hazel/Jules to Patricia Black’s Upper East Side terror Margeaux in Bittar’s wildly successful social media series. Over the last several years, however, Julie has developed an abiding role as a beloved performer and community organizer in Brooklyn.

As a drag artist, Julie has also been featured by Maybelline, on MSNBC, and in The Washington Post, to name a few. She has received artist fellowships from La MaMa Experimental Theatre. She won Miss Bushwig in 2023 at the country’s largest drag festival of the same name, and Entertainer of the Year at New York’s Glam Awards in 2024, which honors achievements in nightlife performance and programming. Since March 2023, she has been the founder and co-producer, with Aaron Hock, of marathon drag benefit Stand Up NYC, which has since raised over $110,000 for organizations like Advocates for Trans Equality, Black Trans Femmes in the Arts, the Hetrick-Martin Institute, and many others.

Julie J, drag, drag queen, entertainment, stand up NYC
On March 30, Julie J gets organized in the DJ booth before Stand Up NYC begins at 3 Dollar Bill in Brooklyn. Elyssa Goodman

In March 2023, Tennessee governor Bill Lee signed the “Adult Entertainment Act” into law, which made it “a Class A misdemeanor offense for a person to engage in an adult cabaret performance on public property or in a location where the adult cabaret performance could be viewed by a person who is not an adult,” the bill wrote, and “establishe[d] that a second or subsequent such offense is a Class E felony.” “Adult cabaret” was defined “as a performance in a location other than an adult cabaret that features topless dancers, go-go dancers, exotic dancers, strippers, male or female impersonators who provide entertainment that appeals to a prurient interest, or similar entertainers, regardless of whether or not performed for consideration.” Because the strokes around “male and female impersonation” were so broad and left undefined, the language also challenged the existence of transgender individuals. “The language is vague enough that it leaves it in the hands of each individual jurisdiction to define what counts as a ‘male or female impersonator,’” Dahron Johnson, of the Tennessee Equality Project, told The New York Times. In a cultural moment where transgender individuals and drag artists were (and are still) already fighting for their rights and their lives, many were scared of what this meant for their futures.

That month, Julie J woke up with the urge to do something about it. “There was this electrifying feeling, this fire, that something needs to be done. We need to make something now, we need to put something together, because if we don’t do it now, things are going to start getting much worse,” she says when we meet, a few days before the next Stand Up NYC event. “I imagine it’s how people feel when they write books or when they decide to run for public office, this feeling of, someone else could do it, but they’re not, so I have to do it. This story hasn’t been told, so I have to tell it, or people aren’t paying attention to this, so I have to make the noise about it.”

Stand Up NYC was born in March 2023 and that single show raised over $25,000 for the ACLU of Tennessee, Black Trans Liberation, and the Trans Formations Project. Several times a year since then, Stand Up NYC gathers together drag artists from across New York to raise money for organizations in need.

Julie J, drag, trans activist, LGTBQ+ rights, Stand Up NYC
Julie J in the DJ booth. Elyssa Goodman

It’s March 2025 and another Stand Up NYC show is upon us. It’s a little after 5 p.m. on Sunday, March 30 when Julie and Aaron arrive at 3 Dollar Bill in Brooklyn. There’s a long night ahead of them as co-producers of their latest show, which is set to start at 7 p.m. (or thereabouts). In a short black wig and long lashes, Julie’s eyes glimmer. She wears a black cocktail dress and boots, and it’s time to get to work. Julie, who carries herself with an energy and grace not unlike Diahann Carroll or Audrey Hepburn, works on the show’s tech in the DJ booth, carries a ladder, arranges seats, discusses the event with Aaron and co-host Mariyea, and greets everyone who’s volunteering that day with genuine gratitude accompanied by a hug or a loving handshake. She knows people don’t have to show up the way they do.

“Specifically with Stand Up and starting it, I have learned the power of community, of what it means to bring a group of people together for a shared goal,” she says. “In the past, because I come from a theater background, it was kind of separate. It was like, I’m doing a task, or I am expressing myself, and these people are receiving it,” she says. “The more I got involved in community organizing spaces and even had the desire to make an impact, it was like, I can make an impact as an individual, but it’s much different when you can have other people with you.”

This is also a lesson she says she’s learned from drag, which itself has a storied tradition of mutual aid and activism that dates back centuries in the U.S., not to mention the rest of the world. “You can try to be a drag queen, drag king, drag thing, alone. It’s very hard to do. And I think something that I quickly learned is that, especially in queer spaces, and especially in drag spaces, there’s always going to be someone that’s like, do you need me to zip you up? Do you need a safety pin? Do you need this? Do you need that?” she says. “And there will always be someone that has it or that can do it. That is not always a shared thing in other spaces.”

Julie J, Stand Up NYC, entertainer, community, drag
Julie J poses for pictures prior to the show's start. Elyssa Goodman

Julie’s relationship to community organizing actually starts long before Stand Up NYC, back to growing up in Texas. “My great grandparents grew up in segregation and the Jim Crow South. So, my understanding of life has always been informed by people who have had to prove their humanity or their talent or their ability,” she says. “There was always the expectation of, you need to do well in school. You need to stand up for not only yourself, but for other people who are less fortunate or have less than you do.” Understanding the relationship between civil rights, queer history and activism in college, she was further reminded of her family’s fight for rights as well. “When the opportunity presents itself, it’s like my mind and my soul can’t help but act on it and can’t help but lean into it,” she says.

As a young queer teen, Julie remembers making a point to find other queer teens and let them know she had their backs; she remembers little queer community to speak of beyond that. In college, she found herself shaped by witnessing student activism at Sarah Lawrence College, where she studied Theatre and Literature. “When I got out of college, it was like, well, how can I keep that same momentum going? My mom has always told me, you always want to be of service to people, that’s just a part of who you are,” she says. Coming from a family of teachers is also a part of it, she believes–”this kind of lineage of care, of education, of information is ingrained in my personhood,” she says.

This makes me think of an interview Andy Warhol did with Dolly Parton in 1984.

“You could be a great preacher,” he says.
“What do you mean?” Parton says. “I am a great preacher.”

Maybe it’s the same with Julie, I wonder, but with being a teacher. Being a drag artist is not unlike being a teacher, after all. She sees it this way, too. “Especially now, whether we want to or not, [we] are teaching people that gender expansiveness is not to be feared, that it’s not something that is rooted in evil,” Julie says. Rather, it’s the opposite. “It’s a celebration, it’s joy, it’s rooted in appreciation…we’re teaching how to express joy, how to celebrate individuality.”

Julie J, drag, drag queen, activism, Stand Up NYC
Julie J at 3 Dollar Bill before Stand Up NYC begins. Elyssa Goodman

To create space for people to do this onstage and raise funds for charitable organizations in a cultural moment such as this is its own act of radicality and love. Doing all of this for other people as you navigate your own life and a burgeoning career is another matter. And while it’s a successful career, it’s not always easy to balance, Julie says: “I think that a lot of a lot of community organizers and activists will relate to this, that there is sometimes a point in time when the the the darkness or the thing that you’re fighting so hard against, feels really close, and it feels like you’re taking a really big risk doing the things that you’re doing.” She continues, “I felt that way about when I spoke at MSNBC. Like, oh gosh, I’m making myself a target for the right-wing media and this side of the world that has no desire to see someone like me in a public place.” But doing Stand Up NYC made her think back to her childhood in Texas, and what she would have wanted then as an openly queer child in Catholic school. “There is someone who is that age now, who is looking to me and is saying, well, if she can do it, then I can, too. And I always have wanted to be the person that younger Julie wanted to look towards.”

Julie’s celebrated turn as Hazel will continue into the immediate future, and in the meantime it’s created opportunities for her at New York Fashion Week, in the upcoming campy Tina Romero horror film Queens of the Dead; and in essay contributions to the forthcoming HarperOne book No Tea, No Shade: Life as a Drag Queen. She also continues to co-produce Sylvester, “The All Black Experimental Drag Variety Show,” with Voxigma Lo and Paris Alexander. The next Stand Up NYC will be June 19. Julie’s solo show, as yet untitled, will run at lauded off-off-Broadway theatre La MaMa in 2026.

“Not that my work has ever been specifically about being a Black trans person, [but] I think I’m more intentional now about making work that just speaks to my human experience. When I’m making work now I’m saying, ‘I am a human being that happens to be x, y and z,’ rather than ‘I am x y and z and and I need to validate my humanity,’” she says. “My humanity is not up for question, that part of it is guaranteed. There are some parts of it that are decorated or that might be more unique than, say, your humanity, but they are just as valid.”

When the lights come up at Stand Up NYC, Julie and co-host Mariyea introduce the show, its mission, and soon, its bevy of performers. Throughout the night there are wild cheers. Money’s thrown and litters the stage like green confetti. People applaud, and at least one wears Julie J merch.

Partway through the evening, the performer Dawn takes the stage with a mix of Chappell Roan songs, and encourages the audience to sing along. The lyrics to “Pink Pony Club” and “Good Luck, Babe!” pour out of mouths. The feeling is of being swathed in joy, in love, in community.

As a writer, I regularly crawl into my own little cave, isolated from people, to do my work. Tonight, though, I understand the word community a little better. Because of Stand Up NYC, we all have the opportunity to know what it looks like, too.

Julie J, stand up NYC, drag, queer spaces, activism
Julie J on stage co-hosting Stand Up NYC. Elyssa Goodman

  • Italian man claims to be ‘human cheetah’ with lightning-fast reflexes
    Photo credit: CanvaA man with fast reflexes.

    At first glance, this probably looks like a camera trick. Ken Lee, an Italian content creator, has built a massive online following by doing something that doesn’t quite feel real. Viewers refer to him as the “human cheetah” because it appears he has near-instant reflexes.

    Grabbing objects out of the air with uncanny precision, flicking clothespins and lighters, and throwing a blur of punches and kicks at impossible speeds, it is easy to call him unbelievable. Half the audience thinks his viral speed videos are fake. The other half is just as convinced they are watching something incredibly rare.

    Hands so fast they blur time

    In the video above, a timer runs to confirm its authenticity. In what looks like half a second, he reaches out and snags the lighter from the table. To prove it is real, he does it twice.

    Having amassed millions of followers on his TikTok page, the identity behind the mysterious influencer remains largely unknown. Active since around 2022, with almost 100 million accumulated likes, Lee has cultivated a fandom around his self-proclaimed “Superhero per Hobby!”

    Do you believe it is real? Is this person the fastest human alive? Many followers cannot wait for the next video to be posted. Plenty of his fervent fans are Italian, so sifting through the remarks takes a bit of hunting. Here are some comments that sum up how much people enjoy the fun and the spectacle:

    “Ken lee the fastest and the best”

    “Most dangerous human”

    “Is this what the lighter sees before my homie steals it”

    “It was sped up during he grabbed the lighter, if u count up with the timer u would be off by like 0,5 seconds whenever he grabs the lighter.”

    “If the flash were human”

    “How is it possible to get such powers ?”

    “I blinked and I missed it”

    People love good entertainment

    The awe of peak performance attracts people to watch elite athletes, musicians, or even dancers. There is something that deeply satisfies all of us when a human appears to push a skill to its limit. Whether it is real or fake seems to matter less than the opportunity to chime in on some good entertainment.

    How far could any of us go by practicing and repeating a particular motion over and over until it is mastered? Beneath the flashy nickname and his viral speed videos, Lee’s content has a way of drawing people in. This is not a superpower. Just repetition. Focus. Obsession. And maybe some digital wizardry.

    Testing the science of speed

    If you wish to question the validity of Lee’s performances, maybe some basic science can help. Human reaction time is not just a reflex. A 2024 study found that the nervous system can fine-tune responses in real time. Practice can make movements appear almost automatic.

    It has been well established in research that the gap between seeing something and responding has a limit. A 2025 study concluded that the most elite extremes allow for reaction times of 100 milliseconds. At that speed, the human brain can barely process that something has happened.

    Science explains Lee is not necessarily moving as fast as we might perceive him to be. And therein lies all the fun of it. We cannot prove it is real, nor can we actually prove that it is fake.

    Maybe Lee is the “fastest man alive” or the so-called “human cheetah.” Or maybe he is just a remarkable entertainer. Either way, he has clearly tapped into something strange and fascinating: a blend of human ability and fantasy that people do not want to miss.

    To give context to Lee’s videos, watch this performance on Tú Sí Que Vales:

  • Despite all the likes, literallys and dropped g’s, English isn’t decaying before our eyes
    Photo credit: LisaStrachan/iStock via Getty Images Fear not: There isn’t anything that needs saving.

    As a linguistics professor, I’m often asked why English is decaying before our eyes, whether it’s “like” being used promiscuouslyt’s being dropped deleteriously or “literally” being deployed nonliterally.

    While these common gripes point to eccentric speech patterns, they don’t point to grammatical annihilation. English has weathered far worse.

    Let’s start with something we can all agree on: Old English, spoken from approximately A.D. 450 to 1100, is pretty unintelligible to us today. Anyone who’s had the pleasure of reading “Beowulf” in high school knows how different English back then used to sound. Word endings did a lot more grammatical work, and verbs followed more complicated patterns. Remnants of those rules fuel lingering debates today, such as when to use “whom” over “who,” and whether the past tense of “sneak” is “snuck” or “sneaked.”

    The language went on to experience centuries of tumult: Viking invasions, which introduced Old Norse influence; Anglo-Norman French rule, which shifted the language of the elite to French; and 18th-Century grammarians, who dictated norms with their elocution and grammar guides.

    In that time, English has lost almost all of the more complex linguistic trappings it was born with to become the language we know and – at least, sometimes – love today. And as I explain in my new book, “Why We Talk Funny: The Real Story Behind Our Accents,” it was all thanks to the way that language naturally evolves to meet the social needs of its speakers.

    From dropping the ‘l’ to dropping the ‘g’

    The things we tend to label as “bad” or sloppy English – for instance, the “g” that gets lost from our -ing endings or the deletion of a “t” when we say a word like “innernet” – actually reflect speech habits that are centuries old.

    Take, for example, “often.” Originally spoken with the “t,” that pronunciation gradually became less favored around the 15th century, alongside that “l” in “talk” and the “k” in know. Meanwhile, the “s” now stuck on the back of verbs like “does” and “makes” began as a dialectal variant that only became popular in 16th-century London. It gradually replaced “th” whenever third persons were involved, as in “The lady doth protest too much.”

    While dropping the “l” in talk may have been initially frowned upon, today it would be strange if you pronounced the letter. And the shift makes sense: It smoothed out some linguistic awkwardness for the sake of efficiency.

    If people learned to look at language more like linguists, they might come around to seeing that there is more than one perspective on what good speech consists of.

    And yes, that absolutely is a sentence ending with a preposition – something many modern grammar guides discourage, even though the idea only took hold after 18th-century grammarian Robert Lowth intimated it was a less elegant choice based on the model of Latin.

    Though Lowth voiced no hard and fast rule against it, many a grammar maven later misconstrued his advice as an admonition. Just like that, a mere suggestion became grammatical law.

    The rise of the grammar sticklers

    Many of today’s ideas about what constitutes correct English are based on a singular – often mistaken – 19th-century view of the forces that govern our language.

    In the late 18th century, the English-speaking world began experiencing class restructuring and higher literacy rates. As greater class mobility became possible, accent differences became class markers that separated new money from old money.

    Emulation of upper-crust speech norms became popular among the nouveau riche. With literacy also on the rise, grammarians and elocutionists raced to dictate the terms of “proper” English on and off the page, which led to the rise of usage guides and dictionaries that were eager to sell a certain brand of speech.

    Another example of grammarian angst reconfiguring the view of an otherwise perfectly fine form is the droppin’ of the “g.” It became so tied to slovenly speech that it was branded with an apostrophe in the 19th century to make sure no one missed its lackadaisical and nonstandard nature.

    Up until the 19th century, however, no one seemed to care whether one pronounced it as “-in” or “-ing.”

    Evidence suggests that -ing wasn’t even heard as the correct form. Many elocution guides from the 18th century provide rhyming word pairs like “herring/heron,” “coughing/coffin” and “jerking/jerkin,” which suggest that “-in” may have been the preferred pronunciation of words ending with “-ing.” Even writer and satirist Jonathan Swift – a frequent lobbyist for “proper” English – rhymes “brewing” with “ruin” in his 1731 poem “Verses on the Death of Dr. Swift, D.S.P.D..”

    Embrace the change

    Language has always shifted and evolved. People often bristle at changes from what they’ve known to what is new. And maybe that’s because this process often begins with speakers that society usually looks less favorably on: the young, the female, the poor, the nonwhite.

    But it’s important to remember that being disliked and bad are not the same thing – that today’s speech pariahs are driven by the same linguistic and social needs as the Londoners who started going with “does” instead of “doth” or dropped the “t” in often.

    So if you think the speech that comes from your lips is the “correct” version, think again. Thou, like every other English speaker, art literally the product of centuries of linguistic reinvention.

    This article originally appeared on The Conversation. You can read it here.

  • 10 boys and 10 girls were left alone in separate houses and the different results are just wild
    Photo credit: Ian Taylor PhotographerTwo young children play in the grass.

    It sounds like the plot of William Golding’s Lord of the Flies. However, in the mid-2000s, it was a very real and very controversial reality television experiment.

    Footage from the UK Channel 4 documentary Boys and Girls Alone is captivating audiences all over again. It offers a fascinating and chaotic look at what happens when you remove parents from the equation.

    The premise was simple but high stakes. Twenty children, aged 11 and 12, were split into two groups by gender. Ten boys and ten girls were placed in separate houses and told to live without adult supervision for five days.

    The Setup

    While there were safety nets in place, the day-to-day living was entirely up to the kids. A camera crew was present but instructed not to intervene unless safety was at risk. The children could also ring a bell to speak to a nurse or psychiatrist.

    The houses were fully stocked with food, cleaning supplies, toys, and paints. Everything they needed to survive was there. They just had to figure out how to use it.

    The Boys: Instant Chaos

    In the boys’ house, the unraveling was almost immediate. The newfound freedom triggered a rapid descent into high-energy anarchy.

    They engaged in water pistol fights and threw cushions. In one memorable instance, a boy named Michael covered the carpet in sticky popcorn kernels just because he could.

    The destruction eventually escalated to the walls. The boys covered the house in writing, drawing, and paint. But the euphoria of freedom eventually crashed into the reality of consequences.

    “We never expected to be like this, but I’m really upset that we trashed it so badly,” one boy admitted in the footage. “We were trying to explore everything at once and got too carried away in ourselves.”

    Their attempts to clean up were frantic and largely ineffective. Nutrition also took a hit. Despite having completed a cooking course, the boys survived mostly on cereal, sugar, and the occasional frozen pizza. By the end of the week, the house was trashed, and the group had fractured into opposing factions.

    The Girls: Organized Society

    The girls’ house looked like a different planet.

    In stark contrast to the mayhem next door, the girls immediately established a functioning society. They organized a cooking roster, with a girl named Sherry preparing their first meal. They baked cakes. They put on a fashion show. They even drew up a scrupulous chores list to ensure the house stayed livable.

    While their stay wasn’t devoid of interpersonal drama, the experiment highlighted a fascinating divergence in socialization. Left to their own devices, the girls prioritized community and maintenance. The boys tested the absolute limits of their environment until it broke.

    The documentary was controversial when it aired, with critics questioning the ethics of placing children in unsupervised situations for entertainment. But what made it so enduring, and why footage keeps resurfacing years later, is what it reveals about how kids are socialized long before anyone puts them in a house together. The boys weren’t born anarchists and the girls weren’t born organizers. They arrived at those houses already shaped by years of being told, implicitly and explicitly, what boys do and what girls do. Whether that’s a nature story or a nurture story is the question the documentary keeps asking without quite answering, which is probably why people are still watching and arguing about it nearly two decades later.

    This article originally appeared two years ago. It has been updated.

Explore More Literature Stories

Literature

In 1964, Wizard of Oz co-stars Judy Garland and Ray Bolger reunited for a profound interview

Literature

Bestselling author shares the liberating freedom of letting others be wrong about you

Literature

The big reason why ’90s restaurants were loud and fun and now everything is beige

Literature

Eric Idle says this classic Beatles moment shows they were ‘just as funny’ as Monty Python