I just read the original NYT opinion piece. It's pretty weird and reads like someone trying to piece together a government conspiracy by microscopically analyzing a dollar bill's symbolic motifs...
I just read the original NYT opinion piece. It's pretty weird and reads like someone trying to piece together a government conspiracy by microscopically analyzing a dollar bill's symbolic motifs and trying to find anagrams in the Constitution.
And there's a whole subreddit /r/GaylorSwift and community. Its sidebar reads:
Welcome to the original gaylor subreddit, reveling in queer & sapphic analysis since 2018! 🏳️🌈 We are a space for (thoughtful) discussion and examination of Taylor Swift and possible queer readings, themes, and motifs in her work and public persona. This subreddit is centered around queer interpretations of Taylor Swift's music. Comments arguing that Taylor is straight are subject to removal. Keep it breezy! 🌈
This is a fringe segment of the fellow queer community that come off as queer high schoolers wishing and grasping for the slightest signs that their straight crush might secretly be queer and like them back. It's weird, and it's weird that the NYT would publish something that reads like a high school closet crush diary entry.
It’s really fascinating to watch these communities emerge. They’re basically mini, low stakes cults. You get to see all the cult hallmarks and stereotypes emerge in front of your eyes, almost...
It’s really fascinating to watch these communities emerge. They’re basically mini, low stakes cults. You get to see all the cult hallmarks and stereotypes emerge in front of your eyes, almost satirical in how straight they are played. The us vs them mentality, the acronyms and jargon, the prophets, it’s all there. Seriously, just read that sub, it’s one hell of a trip.
So from what I can gleam: Gaylors are the true believers who see her queer flagging. Hetlors are the homophobic heathen fans who reject her queerness. The rejection of non-believers as homophobes....
So from what I can gleam:
Gaylors are the true believers who see her queer flagging. Hetlors are the homophobic heathen fans who reject her queerness.
"you cannot deny that hairpin drop around the world is a stonewall reference when Taylor has played at Stonewall previously. People cannot try to play the card she is a mastermind that plans all these references and she knows exactly what she’s doing, but pretend she doesn’t know these references."
"if she’s going to use queer symbolism and cultural references and then turn around and assign heterosexual meanings to them… idk. i just don’t like it. this is from a comment of mine around that time and i feel the same way now:"
Like, ok, now these people are disappointed by and outraged that this larger-than-life queer persona and these ridiculous expectations they so academically constructed of Taylor Swift turned out to be just that and now they're interpreting it as harm to and exploitation of the queer community.
She's just a skilled and savvy artist who sings about her life and just happens to be on the warmer end of the LGBT allyship/friendliness spectrum.
I have "Gaylor Swiftie self-immolates or breaks into Taylor Swift's home threatening murder-suicide at news of her engagement to a man" on my 2024 bingo card. It rhymes with the 2016 Pizzagate shooting.
(For context, I'm queer myself, and I would class these people as Extremely Online Queers who really need to get out more.)
I would understand that sub and the "conspiracy" theory a lot more if this was 30 or 20 or even 10 years ago. But unless she were to come out as a transgender man, I fail to see why it would in...
I would understand that sub and the "conspiracy" theory a lot more if this was 30 or 20 or even 10 years ago. But unless she were to come out as a transgender man, I fail to see why it would in any way be dangerous or damaging for Taylor Swift to come out in current times. There are segments of the population who are still extremely homophobic, sure, but those people probably already hate her for other reasons.
Being a lesbian or bi or pan or [insert sexual orientation] today is really not something I would consider risky in any way, especially as one of the world's most powerful people. But I would love to hear a reasonable argument as to why she would stay closeted in 2024. And also, something would have surely leaked? John Travolta for example.
Oh and also this bit "space for (thoughtful) discussion and examination" I mean good grief lol, lmao even
I'd like to agree that our homophobia has chilled enough that folks, famous or not, feel safe and secure in coming out, but I don't think that's the case. A recent FBI report says that queer hate...
I'd like to agree that our homophobia has chilled enough that folks, famous or not, feel safe and secure in coming out, but I don't think that's the case. A recent FBI report says that queer hate crimes have been on the rise. Off the top of my head, I can recall two mass shootings in recent memory targeting queer folk specifically, the Orlando nightclub shooting (Pulse) in 2016 and the Colorado Springs nightclub shooting (Club Q) in 2022. Even ignoring backlash from bigots, the entertainment industry still seems to have issues.
It isn't for me to say if this exclusion is necessarily homophobic and I'm definitely not saying folks that went to see the movie are homophobes, nor am I using this to comment directly on Swift's sexuality. But it is illustrative that our culture at large isn't so accepting yet, even if we've come a long way in past decades.
I sort of disagree. Taylor Swift is a real, living person who's love life is very public and that's she's commented on before - So, she's obviously not comfortable with how her coworkers in the...
Doing the same to Taylor Swift's persona + songs would be fine, interesting, meaningful to me.
I sort of disagree. Taylor Swift is a real, living person who's love life is very public and that's she's commented on before -
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.
So, she's obviously not comfortable with how her coworkers in the industry presented her.
Making an article about her impact on the queer community? Sure, why not. Making an article about how even though she says she's not she totally is and you're all wrong? Yeah, you should catch flak.
I know that musical artists are often as much of an act as any actor but Taylor Swift is her real name and her body of work is about her life. If everyone put your life under a microscope and, even if academically, decided to reframe your entire life as if you were something you're not, wouldn't that be uncomfortable?
Yeah, when Taylor's been dead for a hundred years and can't read it anymore, go crazy - but she's still alive. Her and any potential personas.
The "persona" is where this crosses a line to me. Because that isn't about the narrative, not really. It's about a person. And yes any performer is only giving a piece of oneself, but I don't...
The "persona" is where this crosses a line to me. Because that isn't about the narrative, not really. It's about a person. And yes any performer is only giving a piece of oneself, but I don't think the persona and the person are fully separable - especially when they're not actively playing a separate character. And the rabid speculation and trying to interpret the Taylor Swift the person as queer is inherently going to cross her boundaries, and IMO ethical boundaries.
I think the difference here is that the conversation just isn't "what does her persona say about queerness" it's overwhelmingly "Here's proof she's closeted and queer." And you say you don't...
I think the difference here is that the conversation just isn't "what does her persona say about queerness" it's overwhelmingly "Here's proof she's closeted and queer." And you say you don't defend that but that's absolutely the majority of what has been happening.
Also, when someone states quite clearly that they are straight and we insist on asking what their persona (Who also insists that they are straight) says about queerness it strikes me as missing the point so hard as to be offensive. What does Taylor Swift's persona say about Blackness in America? What does her persona say about manhood? What does it say about the immigrant experience? I suppose one might say "nothing" and move on, but it hardly seems worth a subreddit. I think swapping it proves that particular point.
And even if there's some academic or philosophical discussion, that isn't what's occuring in the fandom discourse, so I don't see the point in pretending it is.
Re:Bowie
"Okay question" is not a useful phrase, nor are the questions the same. People have asked Taylor Swift about her sexuality and she's been clear about it. You could certainly talk about her performance of (cis) femininity and the content of her lyrics. You could even find much to relate to as a queer person in the lyrics. But the behavior of some fans -truly the purpose of that subreddit IMO- crosses a line that runs right up into outing closeted people on one side, and harassing someone by insisting they're queer on the other. Neither aspect of that is ok.
And it's all fundamentally different than discussing a queer person performing drag and androgyny decades ago.
This is literally more than I've ever written about Taylor Swift in my life.
Yeah it truly feels like the two are so incredibly different as evidence by the phrasing of the proposed question - it isn't "what's the relationship between Swift's performance of gender and the...
Yeah it truly feels like the two are so incredibly different as evidence by the phrasing of the proposed question - it isn't "what's the relationship between Swift's performance of gender and the content of her lyrics" (could be interesting but not really queer) that is being asked. It's "queer readings of her persona" that ban her actual orientation from being mentioned.
I'm just think even engaging in asking where the philosophical line might be for more academic analysis when that analysis is not what is actually being discussed is flawed off the bat. But even if it weren't flawed, everything else I said is still true.
I think I'm uncomfortable with it because it's yet another example of how society thinks it's okay to scrutinise and discuss every single thing a woman thinks, or says, or does, or even is. And...
Doing the same to Taylor Swift's persona + songs would be fine
I think I'm uncomfortable with it because it's yet another example of how society thinks it's okay to scrutinise and discuss every single thing a woman thinks, or says, or does, or even is. And that scrutiny can be in minute detail.
It must be exhausting to be a woman to know that every single aspect of you is up for discussion all the time and that people will come up to you and tell you what they think about you.
I need to say clearly that I do agree that it's possible to do the work you're talking about! I don't think what you're talking about is bad, and I see it as interesting and valuable and meaningful work. I've learned a lot about LGBTQ+ experiences from approaches like that.
And there's something there about parasocial relationships but I haven't worked out what I feel about those.
From the NYT article: Yea, buddy — that’s just projection. It is a personal pet peeve of mine when a queer person assumes that, somehow, their queerness is some sort of shield against and...
From the NYT article:
The first time I viewed “Lover” through the prism of queerness, I felt delirious, almost insane. I kept wondering whether what I was perceiving in her work was truly there or if it was merely a mirage, born of earnest projection.
Yea, buddy — that’s just projection.
It is a personal pet peeve of mine when a queer person assumes that, somehow, their queerness is some sort of shield against and justification for being just another run-of-the-mill, obsessive, out-of-touch creep. Taylor Swift is not some gay princess trapped in some bleak, corporate, heterosexual tower flinging obscure breadcrumb type clues through color schemes and song about her gay love life and just waiting — pining! wasting away! imprisoned! — until only the most discerning, loyal, and tenacious of her fans successfully decipher some bizarrely convolutedly, deeply encoded messages of her true meanings and come rescue her. Because that’s really what this b.s. is — just some weird sexual fantasy slash savior complex.
For anyone who doesn’t know, let me spell this one out: Speculating that a young beautiful woman is having super secret hot lesbian sex with her young beautiful friends is not actually revolutionary. In fact, it’s so, so so sososososo saturated into American culture that there are whole satires, commentaries, dissertations, etc. around it.
Also, another pet peeve — two for the price of one! WHY, why oh why oh why, do some lgbtqia+ people feel the need to chase cis-straight allies away like this? If a person cannot support the causes they care for without members of the community jumping headfirst into crazy conspiracies about their so-called “repressed” identities, then — then, that’s just fantastic. Just great. Way to drum up and retain support.
‘Taylor Swift is gay because she has stepped up her public support for lgbtqia+ causes.’
So she wrote something saying that when people started assuming she was queer, it was an opposite of what she was going for and then an NYT editor decided it was a good time to cash in by writing...
So she wrote something saying that when people started assuming she was queer, it was an opposite of what she was going for and then an NYT editor decided it was a good time to cash in by writing about how Taylor Swift is secretly queer?
This seems eerily similar to "Paul is dead". We have a superstar musical phenomenon, some of whose fans have decided that their songs, associated media, and real-life behavior can be decoded to...
This seems eerily similar to "Paul is dead". We have a superstar musical phenomenon, some of whose fans have decided that their songs, associated media, and real-life behavior can be decoded to reveal some sort of hidden truth.
Though 2/4 of The Beatles were attacked by crazy people. George Harrison was stabbed forty times, in his home, by a schizophrenic assailant. John Lennon was shot five times by a murderer who had a...
Though 2/4 of The Beatles were attacked by crazy people. George Harrison was stabbed forty times, in his home, by a schizophrenic assailant. John Lennon was shot five times by a murderer who had a straight up obsession, and some lines of thought that you see echoed here: namely that the real Lennon didn't match some idealized version in his head, was a "phony," and was an apostate.
So while it's not an existential threat to society as a whole, like antivaccine people or Qanon, there is risk of people attempting to murder celebrities. And, for what its worth...people should be able to make art without their actual life being scrutinized by strangers.
It's Tinhatting only without the imagined relationship (Swift is right there in the examples, too). aka assuming that two actors/musicians/ect are in a (queer) relationship but need to hide it for...
It's Tinhatting only without the imagined relationship (Swift is right there in the examples, too).
aka assuming that two actors/musicians/ect are in a (queer) relationship but need to hide it for some reasons
I'm sorry but who cares? What she does in her private time, and who she does it with is of no bearing to the larger population. If T-Swift has fans who are going to dump their fandom because she's...
I'm sorry but who cares?
What she does in her private time, and who she does it with is of no bearing to the larger population. If T-Swift has fans who are going to dump their fandom because she's not a cis-white girl, good. She deserves better fans, even if I'm not a Swifty.
If anything, this is an indictment of how horrible paparazzi is, but we already knew that...
It’s not really about paparazzi in this case. There is a shockingly large amount of people who are basically in a weird cult where they are incredibly invested into deluding themselves into...
It’s not really about paparazzi in this case. There is a shockingly large amount of people who are basically in a weird cult where they are incredibly invested into deluding themselves into believing that Taylor Swift is gay. Evidently a NYT columnist is one of them.
I just read the original NYT opinion piece. It's pretty weird and reads like someone trying to piece together a government conspiracy by microscopically analyzing a dollar bill's symbolic motifs and trying to find anagrams in the Constitution.
And there's a whole subreddit /r/GaylorSwift and community. Its sidebar reads:
This is a fringe segment of the fellow queer community that come off as queer high schoolers wishing and grasping for the slightest signs that their straight crush might secretly be queer and like them back. It's weird, and it's weird that the NYT would publish something that reads like a high school closet crush diary entry.
It’s really fascinating to watch these communities emerge. They’re basically mini, low stakes cults. You get to see all the cult hallmarks and stereotypes emerge in front of your eyes, almost satirical in how straight they are played. The us vs them mentality, the acronyms and jargon, the prophets, it’s all there. Seriously, just read that sub, it’s one hell of a trip.
So from what I can gleam:
Gaylors are the true believers who see her queer flagging. Hetlors are the homophobic heathen fans who reject her queerness.
The rejection of non-believers as homophobes. Post Hetlors Live in a Cloud of Homophobia and If you think reading Taylor Swift as queer is bad, unpack your homophobia.
Some Sony music executive Chely Wright's wife as one of the prophets
Many posts about how her current partner is not really her partner and is really interested in other women.
Her secret queer flagging means she's really queer but is repressed, so only true believers can see with a 'queer' and 'sapphic' analytical framework.
There's an ongoing backlash where "Taylor Swift ™️ as a corporation has caused a large undeniable cultural harm to the LGBTQIA+ community because the impact is actively working to erase queer history on a wider scale"
Like, ok, now these people are disappointed by and outraged that this larger-than-life queer persona and these ridiculous expectations they so academically constructed of Taylor Swift turned out to be just that and now they're interpreting it as harm to and exploitation of the queer community.
She's just a skilled and savvy artist who sings about her life and just happens to be on the warmer end of the LGBT allyship/friendliness spectrum.
I have "Gaylor Swiftie self-immolates or breaks into Taylor Swift's home threatening murder-suicide at news of her engagement to a man" on my 2024 bingo card. It rhymes with the 2016 Pizzagate shooting.
(For context, I'm queer myself, and I would class these people as Extremely Online Queers who really need to get out more.)
I would understand that sub and the "conspiracy" theory a lot more if this was 30 or 20 or even 10 years ago. But unless she were to come out as a transgender man, I fail to see why it would in any way be dangerous or damaging for Taylor Swift to come out in current times. There are segments of the population who are still extremely homophobic, sure, but those people probably already hate her for other reasons.
Being a lesbian or bi or pan or [insert sexual orientation] today is really not something I would consider risky in any way, especially as one of the world's most powerful people. But I would love to hear a reasonable argument as to why she would stay closeted in 2024. And also, something would have surely leaked? John Travolta for example.
Oh and also this bit "space for (thoughtful) discussion and examination" I mean good grief lol, lmao even
I'd like to agree that our homophobia has chilled enough that folks, famous or not, feel safe and secure in coming out, but I don't think that's the case. A recent FBI report says that queer hate crimes have been on the rise. Off the top of my head, I can recall two mass shootings in recent memory targeting queer folk specifically, the Orlando nightclub shooting (Pulse) in 2016 and the Colorado Springs nightclub shooting (Club Q) in 2022. Even ignoring backlash from bigots, the entertainment industry still seems to have issues.
Take The Color Purple, 2023. The latest adaptation of ‘The Color Purple’ strips away Celie’s powerful love story. This is a WB production, a powerful player in the industry. And it didn't flop. ‘The Color Purple’ brings in biggest Christmas box office earnings since 2009. For what it's worth, the 2023 adaptation is higher rated on RT (both critics and audience) than the original 1985 adaptation.
It isn't for me to say if this exclusion is necessarily homophobic and I'm definitely not saying folks that went to see the movie are homophobes, nor am I using this to comment directly on Swift's sexuality. But it is illustrative that our culture at large isn't so accepting yet, even if we've come a long way in past decades.
I sort of disagree. Taylor Swift is a real, living person who's love life is very public and that's she's commented on before -
So, she's obviously not comfortable with how her coworkers in the industry presented her.
Making an article about her impact on the queer community? Sure, why not. Making an article about how even though she says she's not she totally is and you're all wrong? Yeah, you should catch flak.
I know that musical artists are often as much of an act as any actor but Taylor Swift is her real name and her body of work is about her life. If everyone put your life under a microscope and, even if academically, decided to reframe your entire life as if you were something you're not, wouldn't that be uncomfortable?
Yeah, when Taylor's been dead for a hundred years and can't read it anymore, go crazy - but she's still alive. Her and any potential personas.
The "persona" is where this crosses a line to me. Because that isn't about the narrative, not really. It's about a person. And yes any performer is only giving a piece of oneself, but I don't think the persona and the person are fully separable - especially when they're not actively playing a separate character. And the rabid speculation and trying to interpret the Taylor Swift the person as queer is inherently going to cross her boundaries, and IMO ethical boundaries.
I think the difference here is that the conversation just isn't "what does her persona say about queerness" it's overwhelmingly "Here's proof she's closeted and queer." And you say you don't defend that but that's absolutely the majority of what has been happening.
Also, when someone states quite clearly that they are straight and we insist on asking what their persona (Who also insists that they are straight) says about queerness it strikes me as missing the point so hard as to be offensive. What does Taylor Swift's persona say about Blackness in America? What does her persona say about manhood? What does it say about the immigrant experience? I suppose one might say "nothing" and move on, but it hardly seems worth a subreddit. I think swapping it proves that particular point.
And even if there's some academic or philosophical discussion, that isn't what's occuring in the fandom discourse, so I don't see the point in pretending it is.
Re:Bowie
"Okay question" is not a useful phrase, nor are the questions the same. People have asked Taylor Swift about her sexuality and she's been clear about it. You could certainly talk about her performance of (cis) femininity and the content of her lyrics. You could even find much to relate to as a queer person in the lyrics. But the behavior of some fans -truly the purpose of that subreddit IMO- crosses a line that runs right up into outing closeted people on one side, and harassing someone by insisting they're queer on the other. Neither aspect of that is ok.
And it's all fundamentally different than discussing a queer person performing drag and androgyny decades ago.
This is literally more than I've ever written about Taylor Swift in my life.
Yeah it truly feels like the two are so incredibly different as evidence by the phrasing of the proposed question - it isn't "what's the relationship between Swift's performance of gender and the content of her lyrics" (could be interesting but not really queer) that is being asked. It's "queer readings of her persona" that ban her actual orientation from being mentioned.
I'm just think even engaging in asking where the philosophical line might be for more academic analysis when that analysis is not what is actually being discussed is flawed off the bat. But even if it weren't flawed, everything else I said is still true.
I think I'm uncomfortable with it because it's yet another example of how society thinks it's okay to scrutinise and discuss every single thing a woman thinks, or says, or does, or even is. And that scrutiny can be in minute detail.
It must be exhausting to be a woman to know that every single aspect of you is up for discussion all the time and that people will come up to you and tell you what they think about you.
I need to say clearly that I do agree that it's possible to do the work you're talking about! I don't think what you're talking about is bad, and I see it as interesting and valuable and meaningful work. I've learned a lot about LGBTQ+ experiences from approaches like that.
And there's something there about parasocial relationships but I haven't worked out what I feel about those.
What is her persona, do you think?
Would you be offended if I started writing about your sexual orientation based on what you've posted on Tildes?
From the NYT article:
Yea, buddy — that’s just projection.
It is a personal pet peeve of mine when a queer person assumes that, somehow, their queerness is some sort of shield against and justification for being just another run-of-the-mill, obsessive, out-of-touch creep. Taylor Swift is not some gay princess trapped in some bleak, corporate, heterosexual tower flinging obscure breadcrumb type clues through color schemes and song about her gay love life and just waiting — pining! wasting away! imprisoned! — until only the most discerning, loyal, and tenacious of her fans successfully decipher some bizarrely convolutedly, deeply encoded messages of her true meanings and come rescue her. Because that’s really what this b.s. is — just some weird sexual fantasy slash savior complex.
For anyone who doesn’t know, let me spell this one out: Speculating that a young beautiful woman is having super secret hot lesbian sex with her young beautiful friends is not actually revolutionary. In fact, it’s so, so so sososososo saturated into American culture that there are whole satires, commentaries, dissertations, etc. around it.
Also, another pet peeve — two for the price of one! WHY, why oh why oh why, do some lgbtqia+ people feel the need to chase cis-straight allies away like this? If a person cannot support the causes they care for without members of the community jumping headfirst into crazy conspiracies about their so-called “repressed” identities, then — then, that’s just fantastic. Just great. Way to drum up and retain support.
‘Taylor Swift is gay because she has stepped up her public support for lgbtqia+ causes.’
Sure. Suuuuurrrrrrrreeeeeeeee.
Some further context that I think is pretty relevant to this, link to the written prologue for her latest rerelease of "1989":
https://www.today.com/popculture/music/taylor-swift-1989-prologue-rcna122456
So she wrote something saying that when people started assuming she was queer, it was an opposite of what she was going for and then an NYT editor decided it was a good time to cash in by writing about how Taylor Swift is secretly queer?
This seems eerily similar to "Paul is dead". We have a superstar musical phenomenon, some of whose fans have decided that their songs, associated media, and real-life behavior can be decoded to reveal some sort of hidden truth.
Nothing is new under the sun.
Though 2/4 of The Beatles were attacked by crazy people. George Harrison was stabbed forty times, in his home, by a schizophrenic assailant. John Lennon was shot five times by a murderer who had a straight up obsession, and some lines of thought that you see echoed here: namely that the real Lennon didn't match some idealized version in his head, was a "phony," and was an apostate.
So while it's not an existential threat to society as a whole, like antivaccine people or Qanon, there is risk of people attempting to murder celebrities. And, for what its worth...people should be able to make art without their actual life being scrutinized by strangers.
It's Tinhatting only without the imagined relationship (Swift is right there in the examples, too).
aka assuming that two actors/musicians/ect are in a (queer) relationship but need to hide it for some reasons
I'm sorry but who cares?
What she does in her private time, and who she does it with is of no bearing to the larger population. If T-Swift has fans who are going to dump their fandom because she's not a cis-white girl, good. She deserves better fans, even if I'm not a Swifty.
If anything, this is an indictment of how horrible paparazzi is, but we already knew that...
I'm not sure if you're aware, but that's the point of the article from the Guardian.
It’s not really about paparazzi in this case. There is a shockingly large amount of people who are basically in a weird cult where they are incredibly invested into deluding themselves into believing that Taylor Swift is gay. Evidently a NYT columnist is one of them.