The NY Times published a column asserting that Taylor Swift is a closeted gay woman

Author: | Filed under: Celebrities

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.

0 Comments

Princess Kate might become a Lady of the Garter for her 42nd birthday

Author: | Filed under: Celebrities

The Princess of Wales turns 42 years old on January 9th. After her first full year as PoW, it feels like people are really underwhelmed by Kate’s whole (lazy) deal. Part of it might be familiarity breeding contempt, but Kate and her people spent the Cambridge years promising to be keen once Kate got the upgrade, and now that the title upgrade has happened, Kate is still the same old person only her hairpieces have gotten even cheaper and more obvious. Anyway, Becky English had a lengthy piece about Kate’s birthday and what the future will hold for Katie Keen. Some highlights:

The birthday celebrations will be low key. ‘They’ll be at Windsor as the children are just about to start back at school, so it will just be family,’ a source says, almost apologetically. ‘But to be honest, that’s just the way she likes it.’

People expect her to step up: While William has had to step up as the new Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall and take on a whole host of further responsibilities, the demands have also been noticeable for his wife. And things are going to start shifting up a gear.

Kate might get a Garter robe: There is much chatter in royal circles that King Charles might even seal his daughter-in-law’s new position in the near future by appointing her as a Royal Lady of the Order of the Garter, the oldest and most senior Order of Chivalry in Britain, established by Edward III almost 700 years ago, inspired by the tales of King Arthur and the gallantry of his Knights of the Round Table. The appointment, personally chosen by the monarch for service to the crown or national life, would cement her seniority and place her alongside Queen Camilla, the Princess Royal, Princess Alexandra (and the Royal Knights who include her husband Prince William, Prince Edward, Prince Andrew and the Dukes of Kent and Gloucester). Many senior figures believe that after more than ten years of peerless royal service she deserves a place in their ranks in her own right.

Keen royal warrants: There is also talk that the Princess – as well as her husband – might be given the power to issue her own Royal Warrants for the first time. Pressure is growing on the King to decide which members of the family he should permit to issue these sought-after marks of honour, a tradition which dates back to the Middle Ages and enables senior royals to allow companies who regularly provide them with goods or services to use their coat of arms. Holding a Royal Warrant, which can be displayed on their business premises, products, packaging, stationery, advertising and vehicles, offers huge commercial kudos both at home and abroad.

Kate’s royal warrants could boost the local economy: The prospect of Princess of Wales warrants would be welcome in many quarters. Several existing holders I have spoken to believe the value to British businesses of having the Princess of Wales officially endorse them would be almost incalculable. ‘It would be a huge boost to British industry,’ said one. ‘Interest would go through the roof, particularly in areas such as fashion and lifestyle.’ A royal source told me that the issue of whether the Prince and Princess of Wales would get the power to issue their own Royal Warrants was a ‘grey area’ and that a final decision rested with Buckingham Palace. ‘They are aware of it. Hopefully something will happen sooner rather than later,’ they added.

Kate could go on another solo overseas trip: I am also told this year may see the Princess of Wales undertake her first solo royal overseas visit for two years, the last being to Denmark in February 2022. While there is nothing in the diary yet, it is said to be something that the Princess is ‘actively considering’, in addition to a working trip to Rome with her husband this spring, which I exclusively revealed in the Mail last month, and is long overdue. For while the Waleses are a formidable force together, travelling abroad on her own would give Catherine a chance to spread her wings and better highlight the causes she is personally passionate about.

Lazy Kate: Indeed, the Princess’s workload is something that often prompts debate — and can elicit complaints that she is not pulling her weight. The annual round-up of royal engagements published last month (unofficial, but rarely disagreed with by palace aides) calculated that she carried out just 134 engagements in the previous 12 months – approximately one every three days. It is without doubt a fraction of those carried out by other senior royals well into pensionable age, including the King (516), Princess Anne (410) and even the 79-year-old Duke of Gloucester (190), and quietly noted to be a ‘little on the low side’.

Kate is rankled by the lazy label: This is something that rankles those close to her, however, who stress that she and her husband have long made clear their desire to be more involved with a smaller number of charities, both in front of and behind the scenes. One tells me: ‘What the court circular numbers don’t show is the hours and hours she spends with the team designing the programmes you see in public. Like her husband, she is deep in the reeds of the planning, something which isn’t reflected in the number of engagements undertaken each year. It’s irritating.’

Living in Adelaide Cottage: While the sad death of Queen Elizabeth in the autumn of that year — on the day the children started at Lambrook School — put paid to plans for them to spend more time with Gan-Gan, the move has been ‘good for them all’, says one who knows them well. There’s a trampoline in the garden and the children can often be seen cycling around the Windsor estate with their parents.

[From The Daily Mail]

During all of the coronation fuss, I kept thinking how weird it was that Kate wasn’t already a member of the Order of the Garter or the Order of the Thistle. I kind of shrugged it off because I think it takes forever for the “married-in” royals to get those kinds of honors, but yeah, it definitely feels like QEII made a point of not giving Kate specific honors, and Charles is doing the same. It would be a big deal (in those circles) if Kate became a Lady of the Garter or whatever. As for Kate’s laziness… yeah, they’re irritated by Kate’s refusal to do more. I think even Charles and Camilla are probably half-annoyed by Will and Kate’s laziness, even though Charles and Camilla are also extremely jealous of the heir and the wig.

Also: “What the court circular numbers don’t show is the hours and hours she spends with the team designing the programmes you see in public.” What programs?? She’s re-launched her Early Years bullsh-t three different times and each time, it’s the same old “awareness raising” word salad. What’s worse – the idea that Kate is too lazy and ignorant to do anything, or that she actually believes that she’s working her fingers to the bone on all of this asinine busywork?