Several days ago, the New York Times published a guest column by editor Anna Marks. The op-ed? “Look What We Made Taylor Swift Do.” It is an overwrought and bonkers piece about how Taylor Swift is not only a queer woman but that her relationships with men are all a lie and she has a responsibility to come out of the closet. Let me be clear: I also believe that Taylor has left enough bread crumbs – in the form of Easter eggs within her albums, lyrics, dates, photos, etc – to indicate that she’s probably bisexual. I also think that she went through a queerbaiting phase, where she was really trying to promote herself as especially “aligned” with the LGBTQ+ community to sell an album (although she said clearly, at the time, in Vogue interview that she’s not PART of the LGBTQ community).

We’ve openly discussed all of that on this blog, and many of other Swift-fans and Swift-watchers have analyzed all of this online for years. It’s speculation, and given the fact that Taylor Swift has an enormous, global fanbase who pore over every single thing she does and says, of course people are going to wonder about all of those Easter eggs and bread crumbs. “Speculating on the internet” is not the same thing as a New York Times columnist publishing an op-ed full of assertions that Taylor is living a lie, that she’s a closeted queer woman who feels that she must remain in the closet to keep her fans. Anna Marks really crossed a line, and Taylor and her team are really pissed off.

A controversial New York Times opinion piece that openly speculated this week whether Taylor Swift is a closeted queer person has drawn the ire of the pop superstar’s associates, CNN has learned.

“Because of her massive success, in this moment there is a Taylor-shaped hole in people’s ethics,” a person close to the situation, who requested anonymity to speak candidly, told CNN. “This article wouldn’t have been allowed to be written about Shawn Mendes or any male artist whose sexuality has been questioned by fans. There seems to be no boundary some journalists won’t cross when writing about Taylor, regardless of how invasive, untrue, and inappropriate it is – all under the protective veil of an ‘opinion piece,’” the person added.

In the 5,000-word piece, written in The Times’ opinion section, editor Anna Marks strung together a long list of LGBTQ references — some overt, some perceived — Swift has weaved into her songs and performances. Marks suggested that Swift had, perhaps, for years been trying to signal that she identifies with the queer community.

“In isolation, a single dropped hairpin is perhaps meaningless or accidental, but considered together, they’re the unfurling of a ballerina bun after a long performance,” Marks wrote. “Those dropped hairpins began to appear in Ms. Swift’s artistry long before queer identity was undeniably marketable to mainstream America. They suggest to queer people that she is one of us.”

Swift has in the past embraced the LGBTQ community, taking stands in support of her fans amid a record number of anti-gay bills introduced around the country, calling her concerts a “safe space” for LGBTQ people. But she has denied that she is a member of the LGBTQ community. In a 2019 interview with Vogue magazine, Swift said she has simply aimed to be a good ally to the LGBTQ community as their rights come under attack.

“Rights are being stripped from basically everyone who isn’t a straight white cisgender male,” Swift told the magazine. “I didn’t realize until recently that I could advocate for a community that I’m not a part of.”

Swift also wrote in the prologue to her re-recorded “1989” album, which was released last year, that she surrounded herself with female friends because society speculated incessantly about whether she was romantically involved with males she was publicly seen with.

“If I only hung out with my female friends, people couldn’t sensationalize or sexualize that — right? I would learn later on that people could and people would,” she wrote.

It is highly unusual for a reputable news organization like The Times to publish an article speculating on a person’s sexuality, let alone a figure of immense cultural significance who has previously denied the insinuations. Such pieces are widely considered to be inappropriate, and The Times received some criticism from readers for its decision to publish its piece on Swift.

[From CNN]

Yeah… here’s the thing, Taylor Swift could come out if she was, in fact, bisexual or gay. All of these assertions and suppositions are built on this false idea that Taylor Swift Is Too Famous To Be Out, when that’s not the case. The overwhelming majority of her fans would still obsessively follow her and buy everything she sells. It’s also galling because Taylor really has gone on the record about this several times, and she’s also made a point of calling herself an LGBTQ ally. She’s performed her allyship publicly for years and that alone is very important. Anyway, I’m sure Taylor’s comms guru is the unnamed “source” in CNN’s piece and Tree might need to go on the record to blast the Times.

Photos courtesy of Cover Images, Backgrid.