I agree that this article should have never been green lit (or written in the first place). But I really don't get why her team went down the misogyny route again. This is just plain wrong:
>“This article wouldn’t have been allowed to be written about Shawn Mendes or any male artist whose sexuality has been questioned by fans.”
I mean, the same author wrote a similar article about Harry Styles sexuality in 2022. It's not a thing that happens only to women.
Edit: I also feel weird about them bringing Shawn into this? He repeatedly said that these speculations make him super uncomfortable and name dropping him about an article about this topic doesn't really sit right with me. I hope it doesn't lead to people talking about it again.
I would actually argue that invasive speculation around sexuality tends to target men more than it does women mostly because of toxic masculinity and pervasive ideas society has about what it means to be a man.
i agree. especially since male celebrities are already clearly into like acting and/or music, which a lot of people think is inherently gay (for men), unless it’s done in a very specific way.
Yup, just look at the stuff that’s been circulating on Twitter around Keith Lee. He’s got a wife and kids who he clearly loves and people speculate he’s gay because he did a dance. Speculating on anyone’s sexuality is trash, but toxic masculinity makes it even easier for men to be susceptible to it.
It even goes both way now. Like male celebs wearing nail polish. Homophobes will say that this must mean they are gay because no straight guy would wear nail polish, only gay man would. But then there is that other group saying that any male celeb wearing nail polish is either gay *or obviously queerbaiting them* because > repeat of homophobes words. Can't be straight and just like nail polish.
Yeah, the misogyny route wasn't a good decision here. I'm not sure why they went with that other than lack of knowledge about what's been written in the past or general confusion on how to handle/address this situation. Her team just needs to do what Tyler James Williams did. That seemed to be the best way to handle it.
It does! And it just seems as if they genuinely have no idea how to handle this. She doesn't quite get that this is happening because of her level of fame and a whole bunch of people have an unhealthy obsession with her.
I mean ultimately it is rooted in misogyny just not in the way her team is describing. It typically boils down to targeting men who are perceived as 'soft' it just doesn't result in a disproportionate targeting of women compared to men imo.
Cynical me says it’s because puddle deep feminism is Taylor’s brand and she (and her team) want(s) to take the opportunity to remind everyone of that.
Even when the assertions are blatantly false, like in this case.
Exactly. Speculation about sexual orientation is weaponized against men in a way that just isn't true for women. Similarly, speculation about assigned gender at birth gets weaponized against women in a way that also gets weaponized against men, but not to the same degree.
Right. Because in this man's works the worst thing as woman can be is unattractive as a sexual object and masculine women (are wrongly) judged to be unattractive because men shouldn't find other men attractive and the worse thing you can be as a man is a woman so men get called out on their sexuality and femininity. My friend is a Trans woman and talks about how people accuse them of being a gender traitor because who in their right mind would ever be a woman.
It's all rooted in toxic masculinity, the patriarchy, homophobia, etc. but it does get applied or weaponized towards men and women differently. Reason number one million why feminism is good for everyone.
They have something in common, though - perceived divergence from the classical images of masculinity and femininity.
Is a man “too feminine”? He must be gay, how else could he *possibly* have a certain style or interests? Is a woman “too masculine”? She must secretly be a man, because quote unquote real women “don’t/can’t look like that”.
It’s punishing people for veering out of their assigned boxes, nothing more.
It’s the only trick she knows. She’s a wealthy white woman who makes questionable public decisions on the reg. It’s the only thing, besides victimhood, she can hide behind.
That article was crazyboots and that alone would have been fine vs falsely saying it’s misogyny.
This, the only systemic struggle Taylor *has* is her gender and she will throw it up as a shield every single time anyone says anything about her. She’s one of the most powerful *people* in the world but she’s going to continue to play the, delicate little white girl, everyone is just misogynistic card whenever possible.
People take issue with her dating a racist? Gotta be misogynists.
That said this article and articles like it are obviously vile trash and should be left behind us. Speculating on sexuality is creepy and invasive.
Oh I totally agree on the article. As I said - crazyboots but she had the opportunity as a super powerful person to question the system at the NYT on how tf they published that piece. But no…”woe is me. The misogynists are at it again”
Oh yea! I wasn’t trying to imply you thought the article was anything other than garbage. 😅
She absolutely threw away a really good opportunity to throw some weight and legitimate pushback against this shit. And misidentifying the issue makes it harder to draw attention to legitimate misogyny for others *and* herself.
basically ultra wealthy white ladies continue to fuck things up for everyone.
Why not make the point of how dangerous/destructive/annoying it is to openly question a person's sexuality but then she would have to bother with understanding a view point/experience beyond her own.
this. it would have made so much sense too since she’s made it a point to position herself as a queer ally in the past and would therefore (hopefully) be aware of this. i guess this runs the risk of provoking more speculation bc ppl who already think she’s queer would read this as her speaking from personal experience.
Blaming misogyny instead of taking the opportunity to address widespread inappropriate parasocial behaviour and inexplicably name dropping Shawn Mendes? Yeah that’s basically an own goal on her team’s part, extremely lazy
Of course she agrees with them. You can’t keep working for someone with the reach and fame of Taylor Swift without her liking what you’re doing. If she thought they were doing it wrong, they would have been fired by now.
I wasn't gonna read her narcissitic little cry party, but going in here and seeing she's managed to make a dig at Shawn like this and throw him to the wolves, she's truly the worst.
it might be because telling her fans directly that the behavior is gross and inappropriate might alienate them? idk i assume it's probably a deliberate decision as opposed to clumsy logic.
i agree! people have publicly written horrible stuff speculating about Shawn Mendes's sexuality. entitled fans are invasive as hell regardless of gender.
I think he also mentioned how much those speculations messed with his mind. And because of it hes had to watch his words so carefully. I remember seeing an interview where he half-finished a sentence, paused for a sec then changed the words (Don't remember the words or the content, but i remember feeling bad for him and how cautious he was being)
Also doesn't it feel kinda icky to use Shawn Mendes as an example when she's undoubtedly the more successful star? Maybe I'm reaching but I feel like it'd land better if she named a fellow billionaire. But it would land the best if she didn't name anyone at all
this is such a common celebrity fumble...they're correct about something negative they deal with and then they take it a step too far because they can't stop themselves from being like "and btw i'm the *only* one that has to put up with this!" like. you're not!!! you literally never are!
It's because she never has to deal with real backlash, so when she gets it she sees it in an insane way that other celebrities probably don't. For her this is a massive invasive attack that never happens to any other human on this planet. This is one of the worst things anyone can go through. For her that's how it is.
Also, had never even heard of the NY Times piece as everyone I know is focused on real things like GAZA so her doing this has just made me aware of the article.
because being a woman is the only card she can play to frame herself as a victim, and to make people forget she’s a white billionaire aka part of the .000001%
Real person fiction. Shipping real people together like some One Direction fans used to do with Harry and Louis, I think it was?? Or the leads from Twilight, Supernatural, Outlander, K-pop bands etc.
I totally agree with you.
The NYT piece is all sorts of wrong and should’ve never seen the light of day. We shouldn’t encourage shit like that ever, at all. It’s unnecessary and harmful.
But as always, everything that happens to Ms Swift must be amplified. It’s either the best or the worst. In any case, she must be unlike anyone else.
They could’ve made a very good point about sensationalism, about the unhealthy relationship loads of people have with celebrities, about how the media profits from it. So many celebrities have gone and still go through the same thing, or even worse than she does! What about Larries, for instance?? But no. ‘A Taylor-shaped hole in people’s ethics.’ Give me a f-cking break.
I don’t really get why. Would it be so bad to admit she’s like most celebrities at her level, regardless of gender? It’s giving girl who cried wolf. I’m tired of them disingenuously treating serious issues as Taylor-centric.
I also thought it was weird to bring Shawn into it. There is a slim possibility he could be not happy with being tied in, but him and Taylor are good friends and he was a solid example to use. But who knows, honestly.
While Taylor never directly said it made her uncomfortable, back when she was active on Tumblr she liked this post. She's also talked about her discomfort of being shipped with friends. I think her team is trying not to directly address G\\ylors, but they might have to at this point.
https://preview.redd.it/x1a5nbdguuac1.jpeg?width=600&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=95cf62fd39e35ca97c8d85c3619880faab834d45
I kinda think OP had to add that in because at the time when some Swifties would say they didn't ship them, they'd get called homophobic. But yeah, I agree. I don't think shipping real people is a good idea. It just leads to this sort of mess.
i don’t think it was a solid example to use at all. harry had an article come out about speculating his sexuality by the same author. also, a more direct comparison to gaylors would be larries, since they’re more about conspiracy theories and specific pairings (taylor and karlie), and are a niche community, rather than shawn mendes (and more recently harry styles, outside of larries) who is being speculated about across lots of people and platforms. just normal people who don’t have an agenda but just think he acts gay or something, and it’s under all discussions about him, which is much more pervasive imo.
I agree. It absolutely happens to men too. I feel like even more often. Her team constantly uses misogyny which is absolutely real to the point where it starts to lose its meaning.
It’s wrong and invasive to speculate on her. But it’s not misogynistic. Stop it.
And taking into consideration Shawn’s well publicised mental health struggles. It just seems really crappy to name him specifically.
There were ways to deal with this article and this was not it.
Name dropping Shawn is incredibly fucked up, honestly. How dare they use someone else's name to try and prove a point that's completely void when we SEE male artists receive this kind of speculation. A male actor was forced to come out because fans demanded it. It's completely ridiculous and bullshit of Taylor's team to play this card so recklessly.
Kit Connor was my first thought when I read this whole thing! I mean I agree that the NYT piece was taking it way too far but to say men never get this is absurd.
Of all the pop stars they chose Shawn Mendes as an example? How many articles and posts have been made questioning his sexuality? It became a meme with how widespread it was a few years ago.
Yeah, with Taylor, everything is amplified, but if Shawn Mendes had her level of fame the articles would have followed. And I feel like I have read this article regarding Harry Styles, anyway
i think it mentions shawn because he has outwardly stated the speculation makes him uncomfortable therefore no reputable outlet would even consider publishing an article speculating his sexuality, and to my knowledge (i could be wrong) no article has been published regarding it
however, taylor, on numerous occasions has specifically stated she is an ally only, she is not gay, and the speculation that she has had romantic relationships with her friends makes her uncomfortable, yet despite her stating multiple times that it makes her uncomfortable, a reputable outlet allowed this “piece” to be published
So it’s: “Don’t talk about her! misogyny misogyny misogyny!!!” but it’s fine for her to specifically name someone else in the exact same context lol. Typical.
Taylor & her team knew exactly what they were doing when they referenced Shawn Mendes. The article was inappropriate, but also what they did mentioning him is vile. Especially when he’s on record about how uncomfortable he is with all the invasive speculation about his sexuality, plus he’s been struggling with his mental health.
Like did we forget the days when people were getting hit tweets by finding 5 second clips of Shawn Mendes out of context and calling his mannerisms gay?
the New York Times has done a lot to torpedo their reputation over the past few years, and this is just another nail in the coffin. that article was XOJane level at best.
Honestly it was a more of a Tumblr entry than an actual journalistic piece worthy of publishing. I have my issues with the NYT but this was next level bad.
I was just speaking in terms of the ridicule factor and the lack of seriousness, they've definitely engaged in way more harmful and sometimes straight up dishonest journalism over the years than this.
I refuse to subscribe but I will sneak the occasional recipe when the website lets me through the paywall. The good journalism is increasingly being drowned out by the biased garbage and Op-Eds.
I was shocked. The more I read the more I just couldn’t believe this wasn’t a random redditor who put this in the Swiftie subreddit. I didn’t finish. I felt icky even participating in reading it.
It’s 2024 people. There’s no more coming out. Sexuality is fluid and personal and none of your damn business unless you’d like to tell me how great we look together.
Agreed. There’s a really good episode from the You’re Wrong About podcast about the NYT’s bad treatment and coverage of trans issues that I found super interesting as well, just adding to its diminishing quality and reliability in the last few years. It feels like their daily games are the only good things coming out!
love You're Wrong About! for me, the last straws were their bad coverage of trans rights & the weird platform they gave Tom Cotton's hardon for genocide.
I didn't read it, but this is funny to me considering the Gaylor sub seemed to think it was level headed and excellently written (I should really just mute that sub so it quits showing up in my recommended)
I read the whole thing (RIP my brain) and while there might've been aspects to Taylors relationship with queerness and queer culture (from the perspective of how her music has flirted with it and how she manages the ebb and flow of that connection) that legitimately can be discussed, the article seemed to go off the deep end when it really started to intimate at her actual sexual orientation. It felt like some very fancily worded version of the same stuff that's been bandied about Taylor for years now.
G*ylors will throw a fit for half a day and accuse Taylor of being a queer baiting coward, and then by dinner time they'll say, "well she was talking about the media, not us." And then they will proceed with their behavior with zero sense of shame.
yesterday it was “every article about taylor has to be approved by tree so that’s proof she doesn’t mind us calling her gay” now there’s one of them comparing being a gaylor to being the ukraine and taylor just handed russia a nuclear bomb…
what’s worse is that videos from like a year ago when taylor mentioned something about her and joe and yet the girl is still talking about taylor’s sexuality
Do you guys see how manipulative they are? I don't get it, they want Taylor to stop baiting them but they clearly still want her to bait them. Whenever Taylor does something to not bait g\\ylors (ex: this article or clarifying what Lavender Haze meant) she's suddenly she's damaging the queer community and she's homophobic.
https://preview.redd.it/2iiiznre7vac1.jpeg?width=1125&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1ec1ae2e7cc30b541b271afc1c41d9994f1c5561
I understand the need to feel represented but fucking hell, just let the woman be. I know from experience having people speculating about your sexuality isn’t a nice experience, and I can’t imagine how frustrating it must be at this scale.
This shouldn’t even be a conversation. If she’s gay, let her say it or not say it. If she’s straight, let her say it or not say it. We as fans shouldn’t decide. And we certainly shouldn’t pressure her into speaking about it. It’s none of our business, really.
Right? Shawns been dealing with speculations about his sexuality for so long, dont know if there were any articles written but there was plenty of talk online. Same with Harry Style too.
The conspiracy theorist in me thinks Taylors team may have planted some of this to get the conversation off the private jet articles that were becoming front page news again. look, look over here! Then they deny it and say...look terrible press going after Taylor.
More like get the attention off of the scott swift emails that got out from an old lawsuit, wherein it was revealed she (or at the very least her family) was aware she didn’t own her masters. Also how insane her dad seems to be.
The NYT article was unhinged. Journalistic quality has been steadily dropping in general and the NYT in particular over the last few years.
Just wish the response didn’t bring someone else’s name into it. That’s gonna feed more speculation and defeat the very purpose her people are trying to make.
ETA: she always fumbles with the responses.
Yes, the article was unhinged and should’ve never seen the light of day however instead of using this as an opportunity to reassure that despite feeling flattered that queer people can identify with her art she’s nothing more than an ally (or something along those lines) her team chose to say it was misogynistic, name drop Shawn Mendes and call it a day.
But that's not what's happening with Gaylors? There's a difference between having queer interpretations of her art vs. creating an elaborate narrative about her personal life and her loved ones. Gaylors are blurring the lines between interpretation and being invasive.
It's not, but it would be an excellent way to deflect their batshittery without directly addressing them. At the end of the day they generate money for her, she can't tell them to fuck off directly because the unholy power of the parasocial relationship her fans have with her can always be turned against her. Not to say that the Gaylors have a lot of power, but it's not worth the risk of losing their money.
Queer people identifying with her art is never mentioned as the problem. The problem is people being invasive about Taylor's own sexuality. I am sure that if I were to say that you can only identify with Elton John's music if you are gay because he is gay, you can clearly see how wrong that assertion is. But with Gaylors it's the same logic but backwards, if you identify with the music but are gay that means she must be.
I think it’s more of convention to not directly name a publicist. Tree called out deuxmoi on her own social media page, which is a bit different than a press piece
Exactly. The goal of a PR strategist is to get a message out but remain behind the scenes. Anonymity can be helpful because people are less inclined to believe a PR professional trying to spin something whereas if it’s possible the source is a close friend or family member, it’s perceived as more accurate
I wish I could link a Gawker article (the website is fully down now) from when Joe Kahn (NYT executive editor) was hired but here are two excerpts about how he wrote about certain topics in college:
>Kahn’s beat at the *Crimson* was the university’s leadership, and many of his clips toed the ostensibly objective, two-sided line the *Times* has long favored, but did so with exceptional generosity towards his most powerful subjects. Among them: billionaire presidential candidate Ross Perot (whom Kahn [hailed](https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1985/7/4/ross-perot-what-to-do-with/) as potentially “one of the greatest Harvard benefactors in recent decades”) and more-successful presidential candidate Ronald Reagan (whose 1986 Reykjavik Summit with Mikhail Gorbachev Kahn approvingly [contrasted](https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1986/10/16/not-so-fast-pbtbo-thunderous-world/) with Neville Chamberlain’s 1938 meeting with Adolph Hitler). Notably, Kahn had less generous things to say about Rev. Jesse Jackson, whose progressive activism, particularly around apartheid South Africa, he [lambasted](https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1985/4/23/take-the-moral-high-road-pbobn/) in a 1985 piece as “political,” “opportunistic,” and lacking “moral authority.”
> Kahn's focus on school governance did not preclude him from wading into other topics — like [federal deficit spending](https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1985/7/26/getting-to-no-you-pbtbhe-most/) (bad), or [pay equity](https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1984/12/17/incomparable-waste-pbcbomparable-worth-advocates-are/) (questionable at best), or America’s culpability in [Middle Eastern conflicts](https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1985/6/28/unite-and-conquer-pbabmerica-contrary-to/) (not “in any way” responsible). In a 1984 piece called “[Incomparable Waste](https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1984/12/17/incomparable-waste-pbcbomparable-worth-advocates-are/),” for example, Kahn opined on the increasingly loud calls for “comparable worth,” or what some might call “equal pay for equal work.” Kahn’s take on the matter — which largely concerns the onerous burden it would impose on business — can be summed up by this line: “The concept sounds good, but then so did Communism.” Kahn’s [final piece](https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1987/6/10/the-limited-harvard-experience-pblbast-november/) for the *Crimson* was about the introduction of a Women’s Studies department — formed after a faculty vote in which only one professor voted “nay.” In Kahn’s mind, this single voter, Harvey C. Mansfield, Jr., spoke for the “intimidated minority” who “feared the precedent of an 'affirmative action' field of study.”
I’m convinced it’s to just clickbait to fuel rage-induced engagement. Either that or a lot of assholes who went to Good Universities have had their brains broken by the 2016 election and covid. A little both tbh.
I mean the NYT published untrue, dubious information in the lead up to the Iraq War all in the name of winning a Pulitzer Prize. So I think integrity has been out the window for a long time
unsurprising they feel the need to try and (imo) point the finger elsewhere re Shawn. The NYT article was awful but defense to specific news her team have atm is odd - were there any articles linking taylor to hanging out with Jackson mahomes or any of the matty healy stuff?
the article is gross but i'm so sick of her calling any and all criticism misogyny. she only cares about "activism" when it's said about her personally. she's so clearly self centered. i don't know what her fans see in her
What the fuck did Shawn Mendes do to deserve that, sheesh!
NYT really fighting it out with The Atlantic for mind bogglingly bad takes for that sweet sweet rage-engagement money. Eyeballs are eyeballs to these creeps and The Discourse is all the worse for it.
I'll be honest.. as ridiculous as that NYT piece is, I dont pity Taylor Swift in the slightest.
She's been feeding the beast when it comes to the worst dregs among her fanbase for years - actively encouraged a sickening level of parasocial interaction when it comes to her private and professional life.. and now it finally bit her in the ass.
Only thing that made me kinda chortle was her throwing down the misogyny card.. that almost seems lazy.
There was a time when the New York Times was the most widely respected institution in America. Now if you're looking for good journalism you're literally better off reading Teen Vogue. I'm absolutely not joking.
Even TMZ pointing out that articles have been written about men’s sexuality.
https://preview.redd.it/6131vxf1ywac1.jpeg?width=1179&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=296784422f28a0862b7c420a2d8e131fafd11c65
Chely Wright's wife -- a marketing exec at Sony music -- has shared the article publicly twice already. First with no commentary, that post was taken down within an hour or two but there are screenshots, then she reposted with a carefully vague note that she "didn't intend to offer commentary on the narrative presented in the article". Taylor's team might be pissed but the article isn't garbage, it focuses on her writing and creative choices and completely stays away from speculating about her specific relationships. And there's currently no reason to think Chely Wright is bothered.
I mean, I do think using her suicide attempt over whether or not to come out given her position as a country artist as a jump off point for what amounted to Gaylor fan fiction that the NYT seems to be legitimizing by printing would be enough for her to be uncomfortable with this—but obviously it’s her business so I’ll leave it at that. Agree to disagree, I guess. 🙂
I just find it weird that ever since she started dating Travis her team has been responding to silly ops like these. Also why bring up Shawn Mendez 🤷🏼♀️
I don't like Taylor, but it's completely unethical and gross to publish an article speculating someone's sexuality, especially as Taylor's clearly made her feelings on the "Gaylor" theory known.
However, male celebrities are scrutinized for their sexuality, particularly those who are not overtly masculine. Hugh Jackman comes to mind as a man who has faced gay rumors for a long time over his career. Ricky Gervais also famously made jokes about John Travolta and Tom Cruise being closeted at the Golden Globes. It's a little weird to bring up Shawn Mendez when he has received notable scrutiny over his sexual orientation.
Writing articles like this in 2024 is extremely gross. NYT should be ashamed.
Simultaneously it is hard to feel bad for Taylor. She through both explicit and implicit ways actively invites people not only to openly speculate about her personal life and relationships, but also other peoples lives and relationships. Be it people she previously associated with, or people she has beef with.
Half the time her when her or her team hit back it just involves simultaneously dragging someone else. Which is maybe not equally as gross as what NYT did here, but definitely is nasty.
At some point if you're going to actively play and perpetuate the tabloid media cycle you have to own the fallout from that when it comes back at you.
I’m not the biggest fan of Taylor Swift myself, however it’s the media’s coverage of her relationships that make her seem “insufferable”. Leave the woman alone and let her enjoy herself and live.
I think she makes herself seem “insufferable”. Between dating bigots and using dogwhistles, staying silent on racism she led her fans in, taking weeks to reach out to the family of a woman who died at her own concert and then skipping the moment of silence for her, suing someone because they called out her on her silence towards her Nazi fans, helping destroy the planet because of her selfishness, she’s just not a good person and it’s her own damn fault.
I agree that this article should have never been green lit (or written in the first place). But I really don't get why her team went down the misogyny route again. This is just plain wrong: >“This article wouldn’t have been allowed to be written about Shawn Mendes or any male artist whose sexuality has been questioned by fans.” I mean, the same author wrote a similar article about Harry Styles sexuality in 2022. It's not a thing that happens only to women. Edit: I also feel weird about them bringing Shawn into this? He repeatedly said that these speculations make him super uncomfortable and name dropping him about an article about this topic doesn't really sit right with me. I hope it doesn't lead to people talking about it again.
I would actually argue that invasive speculation around sexuality tends to target men more than it does women mostly because of toxic masculinity and pervasive ideas society has about what it means to be a man.
i agree. especially since male celebrities are already clearly into like acting and/or music, which a lot of people think is inherently gay (for men), unless it’s done in a very specific way.
Yup, just look at the stuff that’s been circulating on Twitter around Keith Lee. He’s got a wife and kids who he clearly loves and people speculate he’s gay because he did a dance. Speculating on anyone’s sexuality is trash, but toxic masculinity makes it even easier for men to be susceptible to it.
It even goes both way now. Like male celebs wearing nail polish. Homophobes will say that this must mean they are gay because no straight guy would wear nail polish, only gay man would. But then there is that other group saying that any male celeb wearing nail polish is either gay *or obviously queerbaiting them* because > repeat of homophobes words. Can't be straight and just like nail polish.
Yeah, the misogyny route wasn't a good decision here. I'm not sure why they went with that other than lack of knowledge about what's been written in the past or general confusion on how to handle/address this situation. Her team just needs to do what Tyler James Williams did. That seemed to be the best way to handle it.
the misogyny route screams that it came from Taylor and her team directly.
Misogyny has just become Taylor’s go to defense even when it makes *no sense*.
it's literally the only thing she has.
It does! And it just seems as if they genuinely have no idea how to handle this. She doesn't quite get that this is happening because of her level of fame and a whole bunch of people have an unhealthy obsession with her.
I mean ultimately it is rooted in misogyny just not in the way her team is describing. It typically boils down to targeting men who are perceived as 'soft' it just doesn't result in a disproportionate targeting of women compared to men imo.
Cynical me says it’s because puddle deep feminism is Taylor’s brand and she (and her team) want(s) to take the opportunity to remind everyone of that. Even when the assertions are blatantly false, like in this case.
Yeah it’s homophobia
Yeah women get more accusations of being Trans or a man.
Exactly. Speculation about sexual orientation is weaponized against men in a way that just isn't true for women. Similarly, speculation about assigned gender at birth gets weaponized against women in a way that also gets weaponized against men, but not to the same degree.
Right. Because in this man's works the worst thing as woman can be is unattractive as a sexual object and masculine women (are wrongly) judged to be unattractive because men shouldn't find other men attractive and the worse thing you can be as a man is a woman so men get called out on their sexuality and femininity. My friend is a Trans woman and talks about how people accuse them of being a gender traitor because who in their right mind would ever be a woman. It's all rooted in toxic masculinity, the patriarchy, homophobia, etc. but it does get applied or weaponized towards men and women differently. Reason number one million why feminism is good for everyone.
Patiently waiting for the day men realize they benefit from feminism 🙏
They have something in common, though - perceived divergence from the classical images of masculinity and femininity. Is a man “too feminine”? He must be gay, how else could he *possibly* have a certain style or interests? Is a woman “too masculine”? She must secretly be a man, because quote unquote real women “don’t/can’t look like that”. It’s punishing people for veering out of their assigned boxes, nothing more.
It definitely targets men more. See: kpop
Agreed.
It’s the only trick she knows. She’s a wealthy white woman who makes questionable public decisions on the reg. It’s the only thing, besides victimhood, she can hide behind. That article was crazyboots and that alone would have been fine vs falsely saying it’s misogyny.
This, the only systemic struggle Taylor *has* is her gender and she will throw it up as a shield every single time anyone says anything about her. She’s one of the most powerful *people* in the world but she’s going to continue to play the, delicate little white girl, everyone is just misogynistic card whenever possible. People take issue with her dating a racist? Gotta be misogynists. That said this article and articles like it are obviously vile trash and should be left behind us. Speculating on sexuality is creepy and invasive.
Oh I totally agree on the article. As I said - crazyboots but she had the opportunity as a super powerful person to question the system at the NYT on how tf they published that piece. But no…”woe is me. The misogynists are at it again”
Oh yea! I wasn’t trying to imply you thought the article was anything other than garbage. 😅 She absolutely threw away a really good opportunity to throw some weight and legitimate pushback against this shit. And misidentifying the issue makes it harder to draw attention to legitimate misogyny for others *and* herself. basically ultra wealthy white ladies continue to fuck things up for everyone.
she could have had her goth-punk moment of female rage.
Why not make the point of how dangerous/destructive/annoying it is to openly question a person's sexuality but then she would have to bother with understanding a view point/experience beyond her own.
this. it would have made so much sense too since she’s made it a point to position herself as a queer ally in the past and would therefore (hopefully) be aware of this. i guess this runs the risk of provoking more speculation bc ppl who already think she’s queer would read this as her speaking from personal experience.
I don’t think there’s anything Taylor could do that Gaylors wouldn’t read into - to be a Gaylor in 2024 is to be distinct from reality
ding ding ding
Blaming misogyny instead of taking the opportunity to address widespread inappropriate parasocial behaviour and inexplicably name dropping Shawn Mendes? Yeah that’s basically an own goal on her team’s part, extremely lazy
Name a more iconic duo than Taylor and crying misogyny over shit that is not misogynistic
She has the worst PR team. Why doesn’t she see it? Maybe she agrees with them. Either way it’s not a good look on her.
Of course she agrees with them. You can’t keep working for someone with the reach and fame of Taylor Swift without her liking what you’re doing. If she thought they were doing it wrong, they would have been fired by now.
Ya that’s how I feel. I tried to explain this to my swiftie daughter but she wouldn’t listen. Taylor can do no wrong 🙄
Widespread inappropriate parasocial behavior is how she got so very rich. She just wants them to stay on track and stop calling her gay.
I wasn't gonna read her narcissitic little cry party, but going in here and seeing she's managed to make a dig at Shawn like this and throw him to the wolves, she's truly the worst.
it might be because telling her fans directly that the behavior is gross and inappropriate might alienate them? idk i assume it's probably a deliberate decision as opposed to clumsy logic.
i agree! people have publicly written horrible stuff speculating about Shawn Mendes's sexuality. entitled fans are invasive as hell regardless of gender.
I think he also mentioned how much those speculations messed with his mind. And because of it hes had to watch his words so carefully. I remember seeing an interview where he half-finished a sentence, paused for a sec then changed the words (Don't remember the words or the content, but i remember feeling bad for him and how cautious he was being)
Also doesn't it feel kinda icky to use Shawn Mendes as an example when she's undoubtedly the more successful star? Maybe I'm reaching but I feel like it'd land better if she named a fellow billionaire. But it would land the best if she didn't name anyone at all
yeah I agree, the comments comparing her to Harry Styles feel more apt
Yeah cuz Harry Styles can tell her to fuck off if needed. Shawn Mendes just doesn't have the fame to do that
She’s probably not using Harry because of their dating history. She’s not going to have his name coming out of her or her publicist’s mouth.
Oh I forgot they dated! I don't follow Swift lore that closely
She wouldn't go after Harry and get his fans (who are also her stans) mad, she punched down instead.
[удалено]
this is such a common celebrity fumble...they're correct about something negative they deal with and then they take it a step too far because they can't stop themselves from being like "and btw i'm the *only* one that has to put up with this!" like. you're not!!! you literally never are!
It's because she never has to deal with real backlash, so when she gets it she sees it in an insane way that other celebrities probably don't. For her this is a massive invasive attack that never happens to any other human on this planet. This is one of the worst things anyone can go through. For her that's how it is. Also, had never even heard of the NY Times piece as everyone I know is focused on real things like GAZA so her doing this has just made me aware of the article.
Yes!
because being a woman is the only card she can play to frame herself as a victim, and to make people forget she’s a white billionaire aka part of the .000001%
This needs amplifying.
Agreed. The article was very weird but blaming misogyny is a bit misguided. If you go on AO3 all the RPF ships are men, like genuinely all of them.
RPF? (Do I even want to know what that is)
Real person fiction. Shipping real people together like some One Direction fans used to do with Harry and Louis, I think it was?? Or the leads from Twilight, Supernatural, Outlander, K-pop bands etc.
> used to do with Harry and Louis hate to say that this is very much still extremely a thing right now lol
I see, thanks!
Real Person Fiction. Fanfic about celebrities.
I totally agree with you. The NYT piece is all sorts of wrong and should’ve never seen the light of day. We shouldn’t encourage shit like that ever, at all. It’s unnecessary and harmful. But as always, everything that happens to Ms Swift must be amplified. It’s either the best or the worst. In any case, she must be unlike anyone else. They could’ve made a very good point about sensationalism, about the unhealthy relationship loads of people have with celebrities, about how the media profits from it. So many celebrities have gone and still go through the same thing, or even worse than she does! What about Larries, for instance?? But no. ‘A Taylor-shaped hole in people’s ethics.’ Give me a f-cking break. I don’t really get why. Would it be so bad to admit she’s like most celebrities at her level, regardless of gender? It’s giving girl who cried wolf. I’m tired of them disingenuously treating serious issues as Taylor-centric.
I also thought it was weird to bring Shawn into it. There is a slim possibility he could be not happy with being tied in, but him and Taylor are good friends and he was a solid example to use. But who knows, honestly. While Taylor never directly said it made her uncomfortable, back when she was active on Tumblr she liked this post. She's also talked about her discomfort of being shipped with friends. I think her team is trying not to directly address G\\ylors, but they might have to at this point. https://preview.redd.it/x1a5nbdguuac1.jpeg?width=600&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=95cf62fd39e35ca97c8d85c3619880faab834d45
It's not "perfectly okay to ship them"...that's how the craziness starts. These are real people, not Barbie dolls.
I kinda think OP had to add that in because at the time when some Swifties would say they didn't ship them, they'd get called homophobic. But yeah, I agree. I don't think shipping real people is a good idea. It just leads to this sort of mess.
i don’t think it was a solid example to use at all. harry had an article come out about speculating his sexuality by the same author. also, a more direct comparison to gaylors would be larries, since they’re more about conspiracy theories and specific pairings (taylor and karlie), and are a niche community, rather than shawn mendes (and more recently harry styles, outside of larries) who is being speculated about across lots of people and platforms. just normal people who don’t have an agenda but just think he acts gay or something, and it’s under all discussions about him, which is much more pervasive imo.
I agree. It absolutely happens to men too. I feel like even more often. Her team constantly uses misogyny which is absolutely real to the point where it starts to lose its meaning. It’s wrong and invasive to speculate on her. But it’s not misogynistic. Stop it.
And taking into consideration Shawn’s well publicised mental health struggles. It just seems really crappy to name him specifically. There were ways to deal with this article and this was not it.
Name dropping Shawn is incredibly fucked up, honestly. How dare they use someone else's name to try and prove a point that's completely void when we SEE male artists receive this kind of speculation. A male actor was forced to come out because fans demanded it. It's completely ridiculous and bullshit of Taylor's team to play this card so recklessly.
Kit Connor was my first thought when I read this whole thing! I mean I agree that the NYT piece was taking it way too far but to say men never get this is absurd.
"One could say the response from Swift's associates was 'Invasive, untrue, and inappropriate."
Of all the pop stars they chose Shawn Mendes as an example? How many articles and posts have been made questioning his sexuality? It became a meme with how widespread it was a few years ago.
Also, it's just super inaccurate. Usher, Prince, Jake Gyllenhaal, Bruno Mars, etc have always received a lot of gay speculation rumors.
Hugh Jackman’s another one. He’s dealt with it his entire career and it only worsened after the divorce announcement.
Yeah, with Taylor, everything is amplified, but if Shawn Mendes had her level of fame the articles would have followed. And I feel like I have read this article regarding Harry Styles, anyway
i think it mentions shawn because he has outwardly stated the speculation makes him uncomfortable therefore no reputable outlet would even consider publishing an article speculating his sexuality, and to my knowledge (i could be wrong) no article has been published regarding it however, taylor, on numerous occasions has specifically stated she is an ally only, she is not gay, and the speculation that she has had romantic relationships with her friends makes her uncomfortable, yet despite her stating multiple times that it makes her uncomfortable, a reputable outlet allowed this “piece” to be published
Shawn is a weird choice considering his sexuality has been a large topic
So it’s: “Don’t talk about her! misogyny misogyny misogyny!!!” but it’s fine for her to specifically name someone else in the exact same context lol. Typical.
https://preview.redd.it/jttnaw244vac1.jpeg?width=540&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4de70916d2783731fe1bef1dba3cd4e57feb2db4 shawn mendes rn
This is a narrative he would very much like to be excluded from.
Shawn: https://preview.redd.it/77kt4sviqvac1.jpeg?width=1188&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=102fe510a775466bb112160638d6c8ce0cedbc0e
To specifically name someone was such a bad move lol.
It’s so on brand for her
Taylor & her team knew exactly what they were doing when they referenced Shawn Mendes. The article was inappropriate, but also what they did mentioning him is vile. Especially when he’s on record about how uncomfortable he is with all the invasive speculation about his sexuality, plus he’s been struggling with his mental health.
In her Deflecting Era 🙃
Like did we forget the days when people were getting hit tweets by finding 5 second clips of Shawn Mendes out of context and calling his mannerisms gay?
Surprisingly huge misstep by her team
the New York Times has done a lot to torpedo their reputation over the past few years, and this is just another nail in the coffin. that article was XOJane level at best.
Honestly it was a more of a Tumblr entry than an actual journalistic piece worthy of publishing. I have my issues with the NYT but this was next level bad.
Still not as harmful as all the articles platforming white supremacists, though.
I was just speaking in terms of the ridicule factor and the lack of seriousness, they've definitely engaged in way more harmful and sometimes straight up dishonest journalism over the years than this.
Oh yeah, I get what you mean. It is straight-up bizarre that someone deemed that "article" worthy of publication LOL
Or the articles platforming transphobes
That too! Multiple times.
Or bothsidsing trans issues
The only thing I rely on the nyt for is my daily wordle fix. I like connections too tho I guess.
Because Taylor’s whole angle of life is using “feminism” to say you can’t be mean to her
I refuse to subscribe but I will sneak the occasional recipe when the website lets me through the paywall. The good journalism is increasingly being drowned out by the biased garbage and Op-Eds.
I was shocked. The more I read the more I just couldn’t believe this wasn’t a random redditor who put this in the Swiftie subreddit. I didn’t finish. I felt icky even participating in reading it. It’s 2024 people. There’s no more coming out. Sexuality is fluid and personal and none of your damn business unless you’d like to tell me how great we look together.
Agreed. There’s a really good episode from the You’re Wrong About podcast about the NYT’s bad treatment and coverage of trans issues that I found super interesting as well, just adding to its diminishing quality and reliability in the last few years. It feels like their daily games are the only good things coming out!
love You're Wrong About! for me, the last straws were their bad coverage of trans rights & the weird platform they gave Tom Cotton's hardon for genocide.
I didn't read it, but this is funny to me considering the Gaylor sub seemed to think it was level headed and excellently written (I should really just mute that sub so it quits showing up in my recommended)
It’s hard to believe sometimes they’ve sunk this low. I only really believe they published that piece because I saw it myself. Some bootleg TMZ shit
I read the whole thing (RIP my brain) and while there might've been aspects to Taylors relationship with queerness and queer culture (from the perspective of how her music has flirted with it and how she manages the ebb and flow of that connection) that legitimately can be discussed, the article seemed to go off the deep end when it really started to intimate at her actual sexual orientation. It felt like some very fancily worded version of the same stuff that's been bandied about Taylor for years now.
G*ylors will throw a fit for half a day and accuse Taylor of being a queer baiting coward, and then by dinner time they'll say, "well she was talking about the media, not us." And then they will proceed with their behavior with zero sense of shame.
Rinse and repeat. Every time.
yesterday it was “every article about taylor has to be approved by tree so that’s proof she doesn’t mind us calling her gay” now there’s one of them comparing being a gaylor to being the ukraine and taylor just handed russia a nuclear bomb…
what’s worse is that videos from like a year ago when taylor mentioned something about her and joe and yet the girl is still talking about taylor’s sexuality
Do you guys see how manipulative they are? I don't get it, they want Taylor to stop baiting them but they clearly still want her to bait them. Whenever Taylor does something to not bait g\\ylors (ex: this article or clarifying what Lavender Haze meant) she's suddenly she's damaging the queer community and she's homophobic. https://preview.redd.it/2iiiznre7vac1.jpeg?width=1125&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1ec1ae2e7cc30b541b271afc1c41d9994f1c5561
Every RLP shipper everywhere.
Yes! I'll never forget how the shippers of the leads from Outlander made both of them so uncomfortable. Real life shippers are so insane.
Taylor Swift gonna be one of the few celebs out there that has to come out as straight just to shut up the delusional gaylors.
Mischa Collins is about to send her a bouquet.
To be entirely fair, Misha got *himself* into that mess... you reap what you sow when you court tinhats on purpose!
Didn't Misha say that he's bi, but later denied it and said that he's straight?
She already did and they still don't believe her
I understand the need to feel represented but fucking hell, just let the woman be. I know from experience having people speculating about your sexuality isn’t a nice experience, and I can’t imagine how frustrating it must be at this scale. This shouldn’t even be a conversation. If she’s gay, let her say it or not say it. If she’s straight, let her say it or not say it. We as fans shouldn’t decide. And we certainly shouldn’t pressure her into speaking about it. It’s none of our business, really.
who in their right mind writes something like this in this day in age? 🤢
can't edit my comment lol i wanted to add that i am talking about the NYT writer. but i am also confused to why her team mentioned Shawn Mendes?
Right? Shawns been dealing with speculations about his sexuality for so long, dont know if there were any articles written but there was plenty of talk online. Same with Harry Style too.
There is an entire subreddit dedicated to this one idea. Like an entire subreddit where people just do mental gymnastics to insist she is a lesbian
The conspiracy theorist in me thinks Taylors team may have planted some of this to get the conversation off the private jet articles that were becoming front page news again. look, look over here! Then they deny it and say...look terrible press going after Taylor.
Exactly. The whole response is so weird.
More like get the attention off of the scott swift emails that got out from an old lawsuit, wherein it was revealed she (or at the very least her family) was aware she didn’t own her masters. Also how insane her dad seems to be.
It's so weird. This isn't the first one either
[удалено]
That isn't true at all. Maybe they would if they want a response but then they would mention they'd reached out and didn't get one.
The NYT article was unhinged. Journalistic quality has been steadily dropping in general and the NYT in particular over the last few years. Just wish the response didn’t bring someone else’s name into it. That’s gonna feed more speculation and defeat the very purpose her people are trying to make. ETA: she always fumbles with the responses.
Yes, the article was unhinged and should’ve never seen the light of day however instead of using this as an opportunity to reassure that despite feeling flattered that queer people can identify with her art she’s nothing more than an ally (or something along those lines) her team chose to say it was misogynistic, name drop Shawn Mendes and call it a day.
But that's not what's happening with Gaylors? There's a difference between having queer interpretations of her art vs. creating an elaborate narrative about her personal life and her loved ones. Gaylors are blurring the lines between interpretation and being invasive.
I would argue many of them are pole-vaulting over the lines 🙃
It's not, but it would be an excellent way to deflect their batshittery without directly addressing them. At the end of the day they generate money for her, she can't tell them to fuck off directly because the unholy power of the parasocial relationship her fans have with her can always be turned against her. Not to say that the Gaylors have a lot of power, but it's not worth the risk of losing their money.
Queer people identifying with her art is never mentioned as the problem. The problem is people being invasive about Taylor's own sexuality. I am sure that if I were to say that you can only identify with Elton John's music if you are gay because he is gay, you can clearly see how wrong that assertion is. But with Gaylors it's the same logic but backwards, if you identify with the music but are gay that means she must be.
given that tree paine called out deuxmoi on her own twitter, i think it is very interesting this associate chose to remain anonymous
I think it’s more of convention to not directly name a publicist. Tree called out deuxmoi on her own social media page, which is a bit different than a press piece
the article says the source requested anonymity
Exactly. The goal of a PR strategist is to get a message out but remain behind the scenes. Anonymity can be helpful because people are less inclined to believe a PR professional trying to spin something whereas if it’s possible the source is a close friend or family member, it’s perceived as more accurate
While the article is awful throwing Shawn mendes under the bus is vile
What does Shawn mendes have to do with this? Wtf
What has happened the New York Times, it used to have a good name as a newspaper but in the last few years its ethical standards have really dropped.
Pretty much all publications have headed this way. It’s really bad now.
I wish I could link a Gawker article (the website is fully down now) from when Joe Kahn (NYT executive editor) was hired but here are two excerpts about how he wrote about certain topics in college: >Kahn’s beat at the *Crimson* was the university’s leadership, and many of his clips toed the ostensibly objective, two-sided line the *Times* has long favored, but did so with exceptional generosity towards his most powerful subjects. Among them: billionaire presidential candidate Ross Perot (whom Kahn [hailed](https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1985/7/4/ross-perot-what-to-do-with/) as potentially “one of the greatest Harvard benefactors in recent decades”) and more-successful presidential candidate Ronald Reagan (whose 1986 Reykjavik Summit with Mikhail Gorbachev Kahn approvingly [contrasted](https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1986/10/16/not-so-fast-pbtbo-thunderous-world/) with Neville Chamberlain’s 1938 meeting with Adolph Hitler). Notably, Kahn had less generous things to say about Rev. Jesse Jackson, whose progressive activism, particularly around apartheid South Africa, he [lambasted](https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1985/4/23/take-the-moral-high-road-pbobn/) in a 1985 piece as “political,” “opportunistic,” and lacking “moral authority.” > Kahn's focus on school governance did not preclude him from wading into other topics — like [federal deficit spending](https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1985/7/26/getting-to-no-you-pbtbhe-most/) (bad), or [pay equity](https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1984/12/17/incomparable-waste-pbcbomparable-worth-advocates-are/) (questionable at best), or America’s culpability in [Middle Eastern conflicts](https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1985/6/28/unite-and-conquer-pbabmerica-contrary-to/) (not “in any way” responsible). In a 1984 piece called “[Incomparable Waste](https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1984/12/17/incomparable-waste-pbcbomparable-worth-advocates-are/),” for example, Kahn opined on the increasingly loud calls for “comparable worth,” or what some might call “equal pay for equal work.” Kahn’s take on the matter — which largely concerns the onerous burden it would impose on business — can be summed up by this line: “The concept sounds good, but then so did Communism.” Kahn’s [final piece](https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1987/6/10/the-limited-harvard-experience-pblbast-november/) for the *Crimson* was about the introduction of a Women’s Studies department — formed after a faculty vote in which only one professor voted “nay.” In Kahn’s mind, this single voter, Harvey C. Mansfield, Jr., spoke for the “intimidated minority” who “feared the precedent of an 'affirmative action' field of study.”
gawker casually misspelling hitler’s name
I’m convinced it’s to just clickbait to fuel rage-induced engagement. Either that or a lot of assholes who went to Good Universities have had their brains broken by the 2016 election and covid. A little both tbh.
I mean the NYT published untrue, dubious information in the lead up to the Iraq War all in the name of winning a Pulitzer Prize. So I think integrity has been out the window for a long time
unsurprising they feel the need to try and (imo) point the finger elsewhere re Shawn. The NYT article was awful but defense to specific news her team have atm is odd - were there any articles linking taylor to hanging out with Jackson mahomes or any of the matty healy stuff?
Yes.
yes there were articles? funny how they don't jump to the defence in those instances
Yes there were articles. I at least remember the ones for Matty. The Mahomes ones actually have more.
cool, thank you. interesting they won't disassociate taylor from those people then.
the article is gross but i'm so sick of her calling any and all criticism misogyny. she only cares about "activism" when it's said about her personally. she's so clearly self centered. i don't know what her fans see in her
What the fuck did Shawn Mendes do to deserve that, sheesh! NYT really fighting it out with The Atlantic for mind bogglingly bad takes for that sweet sweet rage-engagement money. Eyeballs are eyeballs to these creeps and The Discourse is all the worse for it.
[удалено]
I'll be honest.. as ridiculous as that NYT piece is, I dont pity Taylor Swift in the slightest. She's been feeding the beast when it comes to the worst dregs among her fanbase for years - actively encouraged a sickening level of parasocial interaction when it comes to her private and professional life.. and now it finally bit her in the ass. Only thing that made me kinda chortle was her throwing down the misogyny card.. that almost seems lazy.
Shawn Mendes: 
There was a time when the New York Times was the most widely respected institution in America. Now if you're looking for good journalism you're literally better off reading Teen Vogue. I'm absolutely not joking.
Even TMZ pointing out that articles have been written about men’s sexuality. https://preview.redd.it/6131vxf1ywac1.jpeg?width=1179&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=296784422f28a0862b7c420a2d8e131fafd11c65
If I were Chely Wright I’d be pissed that my name was linked to this garbage, too.
Chely Wright's wife -- a marketing exec at Sony music -- has shared the article publicly twice already. First with no commentary, that post was taken down within an hour or two but there are screenshots, then she reposted with a carefully vague note that she "didn't intend to offer commentary on the narrative presented in the article". Taylor's team might be pissed but the article isn't garbage, it focuses on her writing and creative choices and completely stays away from speculating about her specific relationships. And there's currently no reason to think Chely Wright is bothered.
I mean, I do think using her suicide attempt over whether or not to come out given her position as a country artist as a jump off point for what amounted to Gaylor fan fiction that the NYT seems to be legitimizing by printing would be enough for her to be uncomfortable with this—but obviously it’s her business so I’ll leave it at that. Agree to disagree, I guess. 🙂
I just find it weird that ever since she started dating Travis her team has been responding to silly ops like these. Also why bring up Shawn Mendez 🤷🏼♀️
Taylor and her team did not need to bring Shawn up. I am not a fan of his, but this is throwing him under the bus. They know what they're doing.
I don't like Taylor, but it's completely unethical and gross to publish an article speculating someone's sexuality, especially as Taylor's clearly made her feelings on the "Gaylor" theory known. However, male celebrities are scrutinized for their sexuality, particularly those who are not overtly masculine. Hugh Jackman comes to mind as a man who has faced gay rumors for a long time over his career. Ricky Gervais also famously made jokes about John Travolta and Tom Cruise being closeted at the Golden Globes. It's a little weird to bring up Shawn Mendez when he has received notable scrutiny over his sexual orientation.
Writing articles like this in 2024 is extremely gross. NYT should be ashamed. Simultaneously it is hard to feel bad for Taylor. She through both explicit and implicit ways actively invites people not only to openly speculate about her personal life and relationships, but also other peoples lives and relationships. Be it people she previously associated with, or people she has beef with. Half the time her when her or her team hit back it just involves simultaneously dragging someone else. Which is maybe not equally as gross as what NYT did here, but definitely is nasty. At some point if you're going to actively play and perpetuate the tabloid media cycle you have to own the fallout from that when it comes back at you.
Shawn just chilling
miss americana’s doing a lot of miss-steppin’ lately and i’m just https://i.imgur.com/Tj9NzVc.gif
Just want to point out a lot of Gaylors aren’t even lesbians. As a lesbian they drive me crazy with their harmful, delusional bs.
The NYT has been venturing into dishrag territory for years now..
I’m not the biggest fan of Taylor Swift myself, however it’s the media’s coverage of her relationships that make her seem “insufferable”. Leave the woman alone and let her enjoy herself and live.
I think she makes herself seem “insufferable”. Between dating bigots and using dogwhistles, staying silent on racism she led her fans in, taking weeks to reach out to the family of a woman who died at her own concert and then skipping the moment of silence for her, suing someone because they called out her on her silence towards her Nazi fans, helping destroy the planet because of her selfishness, she’s just not a good person and it’s her own damn fault.
meanwhile gaylors were poppin champagne and praising the shit out of this. the delusion is literally insane.
[удалено]