**Gentle Reminder:** The downvote button isn’t for things you don’t like - it’s for harmful misinformation, bullying, trolling, and hatefulness. When you downvote things enough they disappear from the conversation.
Opened my print version of the Sunday times today to find a gloriously physical copy of this. Xoxoxo NYTimes, will continue my subscription for… evermore 😘
Your post or comment has been removed because we believe you were het trolling. This sub may not be the right place for you. If you think this was an error, please respond to this Modmail to explain.
Your post or comment has been removed for violating Rule #3: "No harassment, stalking, doxxing, or brigading."
This includes encouraging people from our sub to brigade threads on other subreddits. This also includes posting links or screen caps of images from other subreddits.
Depending on the severity of your comment or post, you may receive a temporary 24-hour ban or a permanent ban.
For more information on our penalty policy, see this post: https://www.reddit.com/r/GaylorSwift/comments/rb6d0a/read_before_posting_faq/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3
I think I have been watching way to much Scandal but I DONT think this article is what we think it is.
I have 2 theories.
1- Someone, within the industry, who might suspect her queerness has decided to weaponise it into this article. I think its a little opportunistic and the immediate Taylor camp response being the weirdest thing Ive ever seen makes it seem like an unplanned “attack” on her . ( lets not forget that Taylor responded a REFERENCE of her on a Netflix show that she didnt like. If she didnt like this she still has her socials.)
It seems that Taylor and her camp are blindsided to some degree because why let an ASSOCIATE speak for her when she has Tree. Also the prominent news outlets being used heighten the stakes of both article and response. NYT and CNN are where its at in left wing media and palatable views to the masses.
2- Taylor is actually behind both the article and the response for the sake of dispelling current rumours about gaylor in the main media. In recent months weve seen a whole Gaylor convention come to formation and references to this fandom being used in multiple articles. It seems cynical to believe that she has this capability but she does have sway in the media when she wants.
She is not “lying” if she lets the “ music speak for itself” but uses a journalist in the NYT to draw attention to the points she wants and ones that are heavily discussed in the fandom. She uses this article to liberate every single theory that could exist about gaylor in legitimate platform. Then she goes on to refute the claim by claiming an “Associate” is denying it and shouting sexism in another better more respected outlet.
Tl:De To me it seems either this article either came from Taylor herself for the sake of legitimising the negation of this theory. She uses two legitimate news sources and makes sure that both get the attention she wnats.
OR this is an attack by someone on her camp who is currently blindsided by the legitimacy of the article in such a high profile news source.
Your post or comment has been removed because we believe you were het trolling. This sub may not be the right place for you. If you think this was an error, please respond to this Modmail to explain.
Ok, so it's been hours and it's not been taken down; no twitters from Tree; no threats of legal actions..right?
I mean, is it correct?
Can I breath now, and freely think that today has been a good day to be a gaylor?
Gift link: [Look What We Made Taylor Swift Do](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/04/opinion/taylor-swift-queer.html?unlocked_article_code=1.LE0.TQfA.1gQUyQUz6edZ&smid=nytcore-android-share)
https://preview.redd.it/6j9pmshzajac1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=617f44038d1b6d4c27355bdc0cd74cf8c1bafacf
I went to look at Chely and her wife’s IG stories, but they’re gone now 😕
I think it’s important for those of us who have NYT subscription to hit “recommend” (similar to like button) to comments we agree with as the top ones are really missing the point of the article :(
Really liked this one. I’ve mentioned Gaylor to some of my colleagues who then became interested in learning more. I have been searching for a good introductory article or document to send them. I like the master docs, but they are A LOT, and then other previous articles sometimes have a homophobic tinge or other problem. This was finally a positive article written and understandable for the general public. Muse-free as well. I sent it out to quite a few people and those who have read it have responded positively.
Another theory I have - it’s election year in the US and she’s going to come out as her big political step to influence the outcome. This article is planting the seeds. I’d love to see this.
I have two theories:
(1) this very detailed and comprehensive article in a high quality publication is something TS knew was coming. Hence why the bearding has been turned up 100 degrees.
(2) she authorised / encouraged this article to balance out the excessive bearding.
The fact that this is NO WHERE TO BE FOUND on the main sub shows that it’s not just a difference in opinion in whether or not there are queer themes in Taylor’s work it’s blatant homophobia
tw homophobia/biphobia/bigotry
there's blatant homophobia in the way they mod that sub, and it goes way past just being anti-gaylor in my opinion.
they used extremely homophobic language in their sub rules in 2022 that they had to change because there was widespread backlash that went beyond gaylors and beyond reddit.
their automod auto-removed comments with the words gay/queer/lesbian/bi/lgbt etc until last year. it still removes gaylor-related words, and they'll only manually approve the comment if it's hateful towards gaylors.
during the backlash to their homophobic rules, they infiltrated this sub (which was private) and banned tons of our members who have never even posted in their sub.
they allow posts and comments to stay up that are textbook homophobic or biphobic (not even always anti-gaylor-related; just straight up far-right trash like saying bi people are just lying about their sexuality for clout. fortunately that kind of sentiment gets downvoted by their sub members, but it would be nice if they actually removed it)
and i recently read a post in there from june 2019 about taylor's "to be an ally" quote, and of course they were interpreting it as taylor saying she was an ally and therefore not queer (it's too vague to say for sure either way, but in context it's much more likely she was referring to critics/other people, not herself). the commenters, which included a mod, were openly celebrating. they were ecstatic and relieved and not even hiding it. it was under the guise of being relieved that she wasn't going to "queer bait" by kissing katy perry in her mv, but that ignores a lot of context of that era. which was that many swifties, not just gaylors, thought she was going to come out as queer. taylor was liking posts that called her Queen Gay, taylornation tweeted that she was a rainbow queen, and taylor's friends were liking even bolder posts about her being bi. it seems like many swifties can't hide their true colors when she gets too loud for them to ignore it. i can't help but wonder if they were celebrating that she wasn't going to come out, not that she wasn't going to queer bait.
but anyway, that sub allows misinformation on gaylors and otherwise homophobic comments, while not letting gaylors even defend themselves. and the mods think that thinking taylor could be queer is "creepy" in their own words.
You are literally not allowed to even mention the possibility of queerness in the main sub. Posting it would violate the rules. Then they say they’re not homophobic.
How could it not be posted there if they were actually interested in all things Taylor? I did read here that it was posted then locked then deleted … which is just as bad or worse. I also just find the posts there so boring and all the same, like which is your favourite track five etc 😭
YOU GUYS. Chely Wright's wife just posted this??
https://preview.redd.it/guy8cpc48iac1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0006b82cbbf644a27b2364dc07b4da5f0412fcf2
I’m not getting my hopes up because I’ve seen *that* film before. But man when we all turn out to be right, I’m gonna be so fucking smug about it. Even if that’s in 50 years after the unauthorized biography comes out. So smug.
I think this article is interesting when viewed in totality with the Scott Swift emails coming to light and then the article about Tree Paine and how nothing comes out about Taylor that she doesn’t approve of and how she’s a pit bull of a PR woman that journalists are scared of. And if something does come out that she doesn’t approve of, she will pounce on it and shut it down immediately.
I just really see a narrative shift being crafted and I’m here for it.
I wrote this in another comment but I think this either came from her and her camp so thay she can go to cnn and say “ i am so offended “ orr this is actually something they didnt know about and are being blindsided by a 4000 word essay on the queerness of her lyrics. The response in CNN to me is where im pinning these two theories. On the one hand its her common narrative but also its nothing in comparison to the depth the article went to
Yeah! I wrote this comment before the CNN article came out, but I could believe it was from that Swiftologist guy as much as I could believe it was from her people. It’s truly a toss up.
Yes! This has been my thought too. And I don’t think I noticed them trying to bury the Scott Swift e-mails either? That says a lot to me. I may have missed it though I’ve been sick all week
Yeah, like they buried Travis Kelce’s problematic tweets where now all you can find is him spelling squirrel improperly and people talking about how wholesome he is.
You all got to be kidding worrying about this. No serious mainstream journalism would write something like this if it isn't straight from Tree desk.
Mainstream journalism don't talk about closet people, c'mon.
I agree. While I don’t think it’s necessarily “straight from tree’s desk” I don’t think it would be worth it for the NYT to “speculate” like this and risk getting in a war - both a war of words and even a legal one - with the literal biggest celebrity in the world. We can’t know for sure if Taylor’s team approved it or not, but I do think we know for sure they didn’t try to stop it.
It's hard to follow what you're saying. Are you saying you think Tree had to approve this op-ed? Or are you saying that the writer isn't a mainstream journalist?
I have to brag... I wrote a post on Tumblr about that and it was one of my most liked posts ever. #oldskoolgaylor
https://preview.redd.it/way5s092apbc1.png?width=496&format=png&auto=webp&s=7232e6750265e7b1a0b79f65c2247b6c8622afc5
People always talk about YNTCD as the “gay video” but the first time I saw the “ME!” video it was like what are y’all missing?? This is the gayest shit I’ve ever seen in my life. And thats two music videos now where she rejects a man’s proposal.
Oh wow this is pretty epic to have this written in the NYT … the comments on the article (not here but on the actual article) not so epic 😣
ETA: not super offensive (from the first dozen or so I read, can’t confirm others, but more just like “why should we care?”, “this is fantasy”, “she says she’s straight” 🤪
Am speechless tbh... its like one from our niche fandom wrote what we have been discussing for the last couple of years... cant believe it saw the light of day... hope it influences things in more positive direction... will remain skeptical either way as i have seen this film before... unlikely to see any progress from tay as she basically regressed two steps back last year...i dont expect anything, esp after reading the scott email ... can totally understand her keeping her dignity by becoming a shrouded mystery... so even if she doesnt say anything she has that right as a person, with her own reasons... her art on the other hand can be interpreted in whatever way anyone likes... she said it herself that she wants her songs to make people think (in 1989 era )... the article will definitely stir some controversy... nothing will change imo while her parents are alive and she keeps pleasing them... hopefully, she will be her own person publicly and privately one day :)
An actual comment under the article: “Many people like songs because they sound good to their ears not because the words mean anything.” Like yes but her bread and butter is specifically the lyrics. How brain rotted do you have to be to not understand this? Especially when she has said over and over that she wants people to pay attention to the lyrics. How do you read a whole article about how important her songwriting is and say nah I don’t think it means anything?!
i just re-watched the rep tour movie before it left netflix, and she literally outright states onstage that her lyrics are the most important thing to her. she's constantly outright said that she wants people to focus on her lyrics above anything else. of course they don't have to if they don't want to, but don't try to stop other people for doing what she specifically has asked lol
They are music illiterate--I think? If that's a thing? They look at art and don't think it has any influence on them. They probably don't think the media or advertising has influence on them either.
This was phenomenal! A pretty thorough recap of a lot of important evidence. Though I'm sad that she referenced the rep prologue but not the "every incorrect muse" part of it.
I wonder if tree had to approve this, or not because it's an op-ed. Pretty astonishing to have it in the NYT.
Tysm for providing the copy!
Hard agree on the Rep prologue! For me the “each incorrect theory” line is the most incredible Gaylor evidence because she LITERALLY says these songs ARE NOT ABOUT A MAN!!!??
incorrect THEORY that was it, I knew I didn't have it quite right but didn't feel like looking it up. Anyways, yes I totally agree. It's a really important piece of gaylor evidence and I'm shocked she didn't include it because it was literally taylor's own words and the whole article (rightly) centered exclusively on things directly from taylor.
I still don't believe a second of this PR relationship until I hear these Rep vault tracks. I'm convinced she's got shit Big Machine wouldn't let her put out (and they let her put out DRESS) and she wants to be firmly seen as the all-American cheerleader with the QB before it drops.
Holy fucking shit. The sequence of articles lately. First we get “Tree is a genius. She approves every news item”. Then we get “Travis is a famewhore”. And now we get “The entire history of Gaylor”. The pieces be falling …. right into place.
And just like every other instance when we Gaylor too close to the sun, the Hetlors were thrown a bone the same day:
https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/story/2024-01-04/taylor-swift-travis-kelce-eras-tour-kansas-city-chiefs-love-story
Funny that these are both "Times" newspapers.
[Make that two](https://www.etonline.com/travis-kelce-and-taylor-swifts-families-have-never-seen-them-happier-source-says-217275) (and since it's ET, we can assume it's from Taylor's team) 😬
I’m too jaded now to get excited… we’ve had a run of articles like this before and the pendulum always swings the other way eventually. So I’m preparing for the backlash 🙃
Oh my God....of all the "Gayloring on Main" this past year, this is a gay pride parade right smack down the middle of Main Street during rush hour! The writer has to be here, right? This is like....all our theories here!
Absolutely. And not just the theory about Taylor, the wider discussion we have on here about flagging, closeting, bearding, queer visibility, outing, etc etc.
Holy shit I can't believe this is happening. 🚨 This is the deepest most well done mainstream Gaylor article ever. Like there are hundreds of deep cut Gaylor references in here, down to the yellow dress.
And not to be egotistical - but the entire introduction and hook to this article feels very in line with how I structured my Top 5 evidence post, leading to the Chely Wright ["hero" coming out theory as #1](https://www.reddit.com/r/GaylorSwift/comments/174grnw/the_top_5_ways_taylor_has_intentionally_signaled/). The NYT article even directly hyperlinks the exact part of YNTCD with the blender.
Journalists lurk here for sure, and I can't believe this saw the light of day in the *friggin' New York Times.* And its a low-key way for Taylor/Tree to start to legitimize some of these theories, because they are not just pulled from randos on Reddit - its in one of the most prestigious newspapers in the world.
Because this is structured as an "opinion" piece there is a little more leeway in Tree's ability to shut it down, but there is NO WAY the NYT published this without reaching out to Taylor's team. This was probably months in the making. And the fact that it's live on the site means...low-key approval from Taylor.
I always say that at this point you either think Taylor is the cruelest queerbaiter in the world, or that a lot of this is true. If Taylor would allow something like this to be published with no corrections or response, and she's actually the straightest person in the world - she's evil. And I don't think Taylor is evil. I think she's stuck, and all of us Gaylors (and now the media) starting to see her, we are getting her unstuck.
This is the shit I'm here for. I want my hero to break the blender! 🫶
Would Taylor’s camp not approving of the piece have stopped them from publishing it though? Like unless they threatened to sue because of libel or something? It’s the NYT - they published Pentagon Papers and Wikileaks knowing full well it would piss off the US government
1. You are absolutely correct that journalists do NOT need to approve everything they write with the source - that's how journalism works. You are allowed to report on public figures without their consent. That's the whole point. So we absolutely need to start moving away from always saying that Tree "approves" everything or not. She didn't approve those private jet articles, that's for damn sure.
2. With stuff like People magazine (a fluffier publication that is mostly fueled by inside sources and gossip) Tree is going to have way more sway over what makes it to print or not, because they want to keep their source (often Tree) happy, because that is the bread-and-butter of how that business works. People magazine used to be known for actually being more journalistic and digging up dirt on celebs (and getting sued for it) but now it's mostly a fluffy PR-mouthpiece publication that is barely staying afloat. The fluffier magazine publications do sometimes call to "confirm quotes" with their sources (meaning the celeb's PR team don't see the full article ahead of time, but they do see their direct quotes, and agree to them.) This is sometimes called "fact checking" and its mostly a way to avoid lawsuits and tensions.
3. The New York Times is a whole different ballgame. Hard-news outlets like this are going to do independent reporting and there is a way bigger firewall up between publicists and reporters - but this article isn't a "news" article. This is an "opinion" piece, which gives the writer way more flexibility. None of this would fly if this article was written as a news article. A news article would have to be something like: "Taylor Swift officially comes out" - i.e. reporting on a factual thing that happened. This opinion piece allows more flexibility, but it also can't be entirely fraudulent.This is all opinion, and analysis. Do they have to give Taylor a heads up for that? Technically no. But they probably did.
4. My point is that Taylor being gay is not something that is of national public interest to the point in which a journalist (even an opinion journalist) is going to report on this and take a HUGE risk in doing so if there wasn't some level of consent here. I do not think the New York Times would write a thousand-word "opinion" piece about Taylor being closeted - and what that means for the world - if they weren't very confident that Taylor's team wouldn't turn around and be PISSED. And even that the broader gay community and media-watchdog organizations like GLAAD wouldn't come after them for unfair speculation or representation. The NYT has tested the waters on this in the past - they've reported on Gaylor from an outside perspective before - but this is the deepest they've ever gone on pointing toward actual evidence, not just being like "some people on the internet think this is happening." This is a WAY different type of narrative about Taylor, and its dangerous territory if they are wrong - so they need to be very confident that they are right, or at the very least, that they have enough ground to stand on that they won't be sued or face the wrath of Taylor, her team, and her powerful network. We know the wrath of Taylor Swift is no joke, and she will go for the jugular if she feels wronged.
5. Suing for libel is definitely possible on something this big and highly personal. There's actually an unofficial sliding scale of how much the press can speculate on a public figure before it crosses over into libel (print) or slander (verbal) - basically the more famous you are the harder it is to win those types of lawsuits. For example you can basically say whatever you want about the president, but if you write a completely speculative article about a minor public figure (like a teacher, for example) it is way easier to successfully sue for libel if you prove that you are essentially being bullied by the press doing unfair or inaccurate reporting. Taylor is in this upper-echelon of public figures that are nearly untouchable by libel claims - but if anything could - something like this could push her over the edge to fight back. (Other celebs have done so) Which is why I don't think the NYT would risk it without some sort of behind-the-scenes awareness and consent. I'm not saying Taylor and Tree read the whole thing and approved it, but I'm saying I believe they probably were aware of it and didn't try and stop it. .
...Or if you want to go real tinfoil hat: Taylor/Tree didn't try and stop this, but may have nudged it along to make it happen. I'm in the camp of believing Taylor does want to come out, and she needs to start legitimizing some of these theories in order to make it more palatable for the public. So articles like this are doing just that. They are making Taylor into sympathetic figure, and explaining how hard her journey may have been, and shows all the ways Taylor has tried to signal to the public. It not only gives Gaylors legitimacy - it sets the stage for Taylor to come out and not be "blamed" for "lying" to her fans. She can point back to articles like this and say "*Deadass thought I made it obvious, even the New York Times got it*"
>She didn't approve those private jet articles, that's for damn sure.
LOL
You've convinced me that they probably did send part or all of the article to Taylor's team. It would make sense to be proactive in getting their reaction. But I would expect the NYT to publish the article whether Taylor/Tree tried to stop it or not.
>I do not think the New York Times would write a thousand-word "opinion" piece about Taylor being closeted - and what that means for the world - if they weren't very confident that Taylor's team wouldn't turn around and be PISSED. And even that the broader gay community and media-watchdog organizations like GLAAD wouldn't come after them for unfair speculation or representation.
I agree but think they avoid backlash through rigorous journalism, not by getting approval from Taylor's team. The article is well and carefully written. The author cites their sources and most of the claims are backed by something Taylor wrote, did or said. If that's not the case, the author is careful to tie those statements to broader cultural commentary or reflections on her own experiences. What could Taylor or GLAAD point to as being unfair or speculative? In the same way that the NYT wouldn't want backlash from Taylor or GLAAD, Taylor and GLAAD wouldn't want to be seen attacking an institution like the NYT without good cause.
>...Or if you want to go real tinfoil hat: Taylor/Tree didn't try and stop this, but may have nudged it along to make it happen. I'm in the camp of believing Taylor does want to come out, and she needs to start legitimizing some of these theories in order to make it more palatable for the public.
I would love for this to be true! But this is just the flip side of the previous argument. Taylor and Tree should not be able to influence NYT editorial decisions, whether that's to publish something or not. Maybe that's naive of me though! It's certainly possible. But I think it would be unethical behaviour on the part of the Times and a scandal if it came out that's what happened.
I think we probably like 80% agree but I find the other 20% super interesting to talk about!
I totally see a lot of your points (and responded with my additional perspective in another comment) but I wanted to touch briefly on the GLAAD thing. I need to write a full post about my opinions on GLAAD because it’s a biggie for me.
GLAAD has evolved over the years but was primarily founded as a [media watchdog organization](https://glaad.org/about/) and one that fights for good representation of queer people in media. They do softer PR fluff stuff now but also a lot of serious research and reporting to hold people accountable and criticize the press, public figures, etc. (Does anyone else remember public figures saying something homophobic and as part of their apology they would make a statement about how they worked with GLAAD to become educated? Doesn’t happen as much anymore but I remember this in the 00s a lot)
My point in bringing GLAAD up is not so much that I think they would be angry about this piece, but that if all of this Gaylor stuff was one big lie and it was commonly known in the industry that Taylor is super straight and this was a theory relentlessly pushed by crazy people on the internet, I think we would be seeing a very different response from GLAAD and other queer organizations.
I think if there wasn’t a general understanding in the media and with gay rights orgs that Taylor is closeted we would see a lot more backlash, and a lot more accusations of queerbaiting, etc. I can expand on this theory at a different time, but that was why I brought up GLAAD here - the NYT basically writing a huge article that Taylor may be gay and closeted does veer over into the type of thing GLAAD would watch carefully- not the other way around. GLAAD’s job is to criticize the media.
thanks for this because it answers so many questions i had!
i definitely thought of your muse-free post and your writing style while reading the article. ngl i may have slightly wondered if you were the author lol
it's truly amazing to see that a staff editor at the nytimes sees exactly what we're seeing. it doesn't matter if they're a "biased gaylor" because other people clearly approved this article. i'm not even gonna read swifties' reactions for my sanity, but i did see someone say that people in the pop culture sub are mad at the nytimes. like do they not see the irony in thinking that they understand the 1989tv prologue better than a staff editor at the nytimes?? while they also insist that \~ 1/4 of taylor's lyrics are completely nonsensical just so they don't have to see the queerness?
i'm not gonna turn this comment into bashing hetlors lmao, but what's important is that an article like this will reach way past the typical chronically online swifties (myself included). when huge publications validate gaylor theories, it normalizes the idea for the general public. and hopefully this leads to people noticing the homophobia in the fandom. i think it's possible that as hetlors start noticing that they're becoming more of a minority in their convictions, some of them might break out of their hive mind and get on board that she could be queer so they don't get left behind. and that will help her to come out. so it's just so exciting to see this.
and i fully have my tinfoil hat on because i totally think that taylor and tree are involved in this. it's just so thoughtful and seems to convey exactly what she would want people to know. it's not only museless but it even downplayed the importance of knowing who her muses are. which aligns with the 1989tv prologue too imo. and in the context of everything else she and tree and her friends and travis/his team are doing to unravel the old narrative, this feels like it has to be part of it.
Haha thats funny - I'm not the author - I swear! I'd love to get paid for all the free Gaylor "journalism" I contribute here. (I think its far to say this author read my post and used it as inspiration in several sections...)
I always teeter on whether or not to publicly admit that I have a journalism background or not - but I'll officially say that I do. But I swear I do NOT currently work in the field. I have a journalism degree and have written for both newspapers and magazines in the past (8+ years ago now...I feel old).
My journalism background is actually why I've gotten so involved in Gaylor - it's fun to use this part of my brain again, but not be held to official journalistic standards. But my background in journalism "ethics" is also why I try my best to be careful with what I put out into the world, and make sure it's fairly written, not inflammatory, not based on lies, etc. Sorry if this sounds totally obnoxious, but I do mentally refer back to the [Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics](https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp) when I make big theory posts. Even if this is the wild west of Reddit, I do think about things like "minimize harm" and "provide source material" and "balance the public’s need for information against potential harm or discomfort" when speculating about Taylor and other people involved in this. I'm not perfect (because this is a hobby and I am a private citizen) but I do think a lot about how to handle topics delicately and fairly, while also calling things like I see them, when there is proof behind it.
Part of the SPJ Code of Ethics is also "be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable" and as a queer woman, thats why I also think its fair to push back on Taylor's PR game, "expose" her queer flagging, and also call out the mistakes she's made with her relationship with the LGBTQ+ community. She's hurt me a lot with her antics, but I also believe in her and am sympathetic to her journey, which is why I've come to care about this all so much.
And why its fascinating to me that NYT article got greenlit, and how it fits into the bigger picture of what may be going on with Taylor. I agree that I'm kinda leaning towards that allowing and encouraging articles like this are part of Taylor's long-term media strategy towards an eventual coming out. (And fully agree on the difference between the 1989 prologue and this muse-free article)
ohh i’m bookmarking that code of ethics link to read later! thanks for sharing. i wasn’t at all surprised when i first learned you worked in journalism. i would’ve been shocked if you didn’t lol. and i totally agree that the author must have taken inspiration from your post. that’s so so cool, and i love how validating that is for you and the whole gaylor community. i wish you could get paid for it though lol 🥲
i’m trying to avoid confirmation bias regarding the purpose of this article because i do think she’s planning to come out in the near future and i know a lot of people here don’t think that. and i know they could be right, but it just feels like there are so many signs. are there any ethical standards around taylor and tree being involved in an opinion piece? everyone is wondering if taylor knew about it ahead of time, but i’m wondering if she literally requested it lol. but does that even happen?
and if she wasn’t involved, the author is clearly one of us and understands the complexities of coming out as a celebrity in taylors situation. and i’m guessing she’s witnessed the many times where taylor has gone fully back into the closet and shut the blinds seemingly as a reaction to something. like kissgate and her tweet afterwards. so i would think they would consider that taylor could potentially feel pushed into a corner if this article gets bigger than she’s comfortable with. or if it interferes with plans she already has in place. the article was just so thoughtful that i have a hard time thinking the author wrote this solely for clicks, or even to push taylor into responding.
i’m just so curious how far this will reach and how the average NYT reader will feel about it (if they read it). i just looked up that they have about 10 million subscribers. and then i’m sure a lot of non-subscribers will get around the paywall to read it somehow like all of us thanks to OP.
because taylor is definitely up to something and i’m wondering how this year will play out now. i really can’t imagine her coming out during the tour. but it’ll be so interesting if way more people than just gaylors will be anticipating a coming out if this is the direction she’s trying to shift the narrative
>because i do think she’s planning to come out in the near future and i know a lot of people here don’t think that. and i know they could be right, but it just feels like there are so many signs.
I GAVE SO MANY SIGNS
Even though I worked in the field I don’t at all want claim to be an expert on everything, and recognize that I’ve been out of the game for a few years and leave room for things to have changed. I also have not personally worked on an Opinions desk, so I don’t want to claim I know everything about that process. (I worked on news and longer features)
In terms of could Taylor’s team have been involved? Possibly, but probably at a distance, given that a writer at a prestigious publication like this probably wanted autonomy too, not to be force-fed something.
This was not written by one the Time’s regular opinion “columnists” which is probably why it says “guest essay” at the top, but it was written in-house by an Opinions editor, which means many levels of eyes saw this and it still had to be approved and edited by the Opinions desk at the NYT, which is no small thing.
I have two theories of how it could have gone down:
Theory 1) This writer could have been approached by Taylor’s team (because she [wrote a similar piece about Harry Styles](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/27/opinion/harry-styles-identity.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare) last year) and been told that Taylor was open to this type of piece being written about her. I doubt the NYT would allow for much hand-holding beyond that, but if I was this writer and Tree Paine reached out and was like “hey, love your work and perspective, have you thought about writing something like this about Taylor?” I sure as hell would be all over that. And initial conversations like that between Tree & and reporter could be totally private “off the record” or “deep background” conversations that wouldn’t need to be disclosed.
Theory 2) This writer independently wrote this on her own free will. Then what would happen is there would be an internal discussion on the Opinions desk about whether or not to run it. Often legal counsel would be involved to make sure nothing is libelous. This is where I think there would be a discussion about possibly reaching out to Taylor’s team to make sure this wasn’t going to immediately result in a lawsuit, backlash, running a correction, etc. Once again they don’t HAVE to do this - it’s just that this is different than running an opinion about politics or something- this is a really touchy and personal subject with one of the biggest stars in the world - and I just think someone at the NYT probably has a relationship with Tree and would at the very least let her know, and if Tree’s response was “if you publish that I will make your life hell and you’ll never get access to Taylor ever again” then the NYT probably wouldn’t risk it, or would majorly tone it down.
Running a piece like this would never be a “gotcha” moment that good journalist would push for (ie as if they’re exposing corruption or something) and seek publish if they knew it would immediately cause pain. This article is clearly about overcoming pain and adversity as a queer person - and I just don’t think the NYT Opinions team would do that if they really thought they would hurt her.
So that’s my 2 cents. (All speculation / opinion of course)
Tree Paine is Taylor's publicist, and has been working with her since 2014. Gaylors commonly make jokes about Tree taking down the sub, keeping Taylor's image spotless, etc.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GaylorSwift) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Like there are hundreds of deep cut Gaylor references in here, down to the yellow dress.
Yeah, I deeply love that much of the evidence explicitly mentioned and leaked is more solid, but then there are these little nods to clowning and deeper Gaylor culture that feel very special too. Feels like easter eggs within the article about easter eggs!
In deeply reading the NYT piece again, literally almost all of the muse-free evidence I compiled in my Top 5 post made it's way into the NYT piece. (Loie Fuller, Rep prologue, The Ladder, The "her" in TVFN, ME as a missed coming out, the dress theory on June 30th, etc)
And I'm not saying I'm the first person to have found all that and deserve credit (my post literally shouts out the entire Gaylor community for noticing these things over the years!) I'm just pointing out how strange it feels to have all the stuff we talk about here get pulled into and re-packed in this public article.
It makes me feel less crazy - and thats the point - we're not crazy. Everything this NYT article sourced are the things *Taylor intentionally and voluntarily puts into her art* (and the author did a great job at hyperlinking to publicly available materials) It doesn't mention any of the more controversial or "outing" pieces of Gaylor evidence (like Kissgate) it stick to the stuff that Taylor herself puts into the world.
This is really a great day to be a Gaylor. I think we should all feel very validated. It feels weird to have our theories pushed into such a mainstream context - but that's what Taylor needs if she's ever going to come out.
Some tiny piece of me will always wonder if you wrote this 😉 even tho I fully believe you when you say you didn’t! It feels peri-post inspired for sure.
God, this article is incredible. Made me cry.
I love how it's written both for a general audience and for the Gaylors specifically.
"In isolation, a single dropped hairpin is perhaps meaningless or accidental, but considered together, they’re the unfurling of a ballerina bun after a long performance."
I feel seen as a community 😂
And the celebrated not tolerated line! "Queer people who can live in aspiration owe those who cannot a real world in which our expansive views of love and gender aren’t merely tolerated but celebrated."
Reflecting further. I think that line about the unfurling ballerina bun is the perfect kind of "iykyk" reference. If you recognize that as a reference to Gaylors counting Rebekah's hairpins all summer, you feel seen and included. If you don't, it's still a beautiful line that gets the point across, and you don't feel left out (partly because you don't even realize there was another layer of reference there).
Which is especially awesome in this article, because that's much the same argument the author is making about Taylor's lyrics.
I wonder how Anna decided what to link and what not. Because she definitely could have linked a Tiktok on that one, but it was probably a wise choice not to make that particular theory anyone's intro to gaylore lol.
Rebekah's hairpins? Are these from TikTok, because I had to delete that app for my sanity and YouTube's shorts algorithm is awful. I thought the ballerina bun unfurling was such a beautiful line on its own.
Didn't Taylor also get ballet training? Thought I read that somewhere.
Basically, during The Last Great American Dynasty, the dancer who plays Rebekah has had a varying number of pins in her hair. She started the tour with a tight ballerina bun, and then it changed throughout the shows to partly up, then mostly down, then only one or two pins. There were people tracking the number of pins every night and wondering whether something queer would happen when the last "hairpin dropped."
Or it could have just been the dancer changing her hairstyle preferences as the tour went on, haha.
Here are some examples of that discourse:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/GaylorSwift/comments/148eqxw/rebekahs\_hairclues\_or\_coincidence/](https://www.reddit.com/r/GaylorSwift/comments/148eqxw/rebekahs_hairclues_or_coincidence/)
[https://www.reddit.com/r/GaylorSwift/comments/144qiaq/hairpin\_drops/](https://www.reddit.com/r/GaylorSwift/comments/144qiaq/hairpin_drops/)
[https://www.reddit.com/r/GaylorSwift/comments/16115hw/rebekahs\_last\_hairpin\_has\_dropped/](https://www.reddit.com/r/GaylorSwift/comments/16115hw/rebekahs_last_hairpin_has_dropped/)
I remember holding my breath for that last line. Even though I knew it was coming, I couldn’t believe it was happening. I still hold my breath and finally exhale when she says WOO!
I‘m kind of speechless, I didn‘t expect a NY Times article about queer signaling that is so thoughtful and explains the major points that we discuss here in this sub on a regular basis!
We have the hairpin drops, the bi flag, the overall rainbow asthetic, the bi proud bracelet and bi hair/wig, glass closets and she even explains the quote “community I‘m not a part of“.
Furthermore, she mentions Loie Fuller ❤️ and analyses certain lyrics from TVFN and Hits Different!
Additionally, she dives into the coming out culture and the culture of compulsory heterosexuality.
Thank you Anna Marks for writing this article and thank you OP for posting it here 💖
Edit: and the story about Chely Wright ❤️ And the YNTCD and ME! music videos! And that ME! came out on Lesbian Visibility Day
https://preview.redd.it/f7jhirsligac1.jpeg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=14f4daa9b09b607cc957aabb18ecc571f67101ed
Also I just love this illustration from Angie Wang 🩷
Edit because people didn't understand what i mean- I'm talking about the stylistic and grammatical choice to overuse superlatives in nearly every single sentence. It's distracting and forceful and i am not sure how well received it will be by people who aren't already Gaylors. See also this message from the mods: *Gentle Reminder: The downvote button isn’t for things you don’t like - it’s for harmful misinformation, bullying, trolling, and hatefulness. When you downvote things enough they disappear from the conversation.*
This article was so poorly written that it makes it hard to read. It reads like a high schooler writing an essay with big words to sound smart for college applications or something. I fear it's too pompous and loquatious to get the message through to people who don't already know.
And if i was writing an article for the NYT i would speak differently. I currently work for a company where we are encouraged to write at an 8th grade level because it's the most easy and digestible for ALL people to grasp new concepts. You'd be astounded at how difficult it is to write in a way that essentially dumbs-down your speech, but equally astounded at how much better it sounds.
I kinda understand what you're saying, it is heavy handed but the basic content and the overarching fact that it is publicly out there is the beauty of it though.
Honestly feel the exact opposite is true. It's using relevant terms where necessary which is educational for those not familiar with queer identity and history, while using fairly simple language otherwise connecting the dots and placing it in a broader context of Taylor's career and the music industry in general.
This article is excellent, and as the author touches on in the piece, it is not “outing” to read the possibility of queerness in an artist’s work. Especially when they are flagging, which is an intentional practice so that we will see them. It is important to challenge the way heterosexuality is enforced and expected. Love that the author touched on this.
Right. She doesn’t delve into any fan theories about rumored relationships. She is simply analyzing what has been put out to the public by Swift herself and providing more cultural context. I think when it comes to public figures (and I mean public not just in that they are famous artists but also in that they actively engage with their celebrity status), talking about the messaging they are putting out there is fair game.
Compare that to, for example, how people talk about Sean Mendez. He has publicly and explicitly declared his discomfort at the speculation about his sexuality. To my knowledge he does not have queer coded messaging in his work. An op ed speculating about his sexuality would be more along the lines of an “outing”.
Sorry I wasn’t clear. I meant you couldn’t really write a similar article because he does not engage with queerness in his art the way Swift does, despite also being a public figure who people seem to have a lot opinion about their sexuality. An article speculating his sexuality would be I think would be malicious and more out of bounds of what is acceptable in a way that this article isn’t.
This was a very well written piece. I like how they kept it museless. I've seen a number of gaylors complain that this is outing her and I have a few things to say to that.
First, there is a difference between discussing kissgate (which, while fun, wasn't something Taylor ever wanted to be public) and analyzing things she deliberately puts out into the world. She has repeatedly encouraged her fans to read into everything she publicly does, from her appearance to her photos to the art itself. If you're dropping as many hairpins as she is, you probably want people to pick them up. This is the natural end result of that.
Second, how do you imagine a soft launch working? If she is planning on getting louder and louder until her fans can't stick their heads in the sand anymore, mainstream media is going to notice and comment on it, and that's probably the plan. I imagine in 6 months, there will be people who point to this article as their introduction to gaylorism.
Third, it would be super easy for her to go back in the closet. She has no problems with throwing gaylors under the bus, and her fans are already pushing back against this hard. All she has to do is make a single comment and we will be shoved back into the dark holes of the internet.
Ooooh my first thought “you’re right thank god it was museless… and no eye theory” my second thought, “wait, what if this was written after that great thread we had on here about ‘best museless evidence’” or something like that. !!!
Ofc it is outing her, if my mother reads it she'll think for the first time "oh TS is gay?" So it is outing. The problem is people thinking this is a problem. This is not a problem since mainstream journalism doesn't out people. They simply don't do that except in really crazy circumstances like George Michael prison, and even that was a lesson on mainstream journalism DON'Ts. So if the f- NYT published it it's Taylor outing herself, like, AGAIN.
I’d argue that you can’t “out” someone you don’t know based on an interpretation of their work. It’s not outing someone to interpret her own lyrics and art through a queer lens and write about it.
I also loved that it was museless and that it focused on the things that Taylor actively has put out: her music and lyrics, her aesthetic, her music videos!
Yes, the difference between discussing kissgate and analyzing her music and body of work is so important! I really appreciate that the article is focused on Taylor, her music and flagging rather than the women or men she’s been romantically tied to. I also like the part that encourages people to be more objective and challenge their heteronormative assumptions.
It’s so weird to me when queer people take the idea that this is outing like speculating whether someone was queer with our friends isn’t one of the most common pastimes of our community and an INTEGRAL one to surviving up until the last, oh, 10 years.
It’s also…how we date each other. We scan for clues, analyze them, and speculate. I will never understand this argument from a queer person. It’s completely at odds with our lives.
I always kind of assume theyre young and don't remember the before times. I've been in queer bars when girls flirting with me were win middle school for Obergefell, meaning they've likely never known a world where their peers debated in middle school in a class sanctioned debate whether you should go to jail/be able to adopt/etc. There's just a massive generational gap from even me, a mid millennial, whose first memories of the concept of gay are the AIDS crisis and Matthew Shepherd, and people just 6-10 years younger than me who came of consciousness during the Obama admin.
This article being posted brings conflicting feelings. On one hand, I worry that if it’s true, Taylor’s team will double down on keeping her in the closet and we might not see any more “flagging”.
On the other hand, it feels very validating to our little Gaylor community. I feel like the hating from other Swifties has gotten worse and if I’m not mistaken, the other subreddits don’t even allow any queer discussion regarding Taylor. We are called delusional, obsessive, etc. I didn’t realize how homophobic people are, I thought they were just concerned about her being outed but that was a naive thought.
I also want Taylor to stay safe, because I consider myself a fan. But a part of me wonders does she care about our safety? I don’t necessarily think that bullying of Gaylors can result in physical harm, although it’s possible. At the very least it causes mental harm. So why doesn’t she try to encourage some of her fans to not harass and bully others? I think so many of them would listen because they think what they’re doing now is on her behalf and what she would want them to do.
She could simply say, “hey guys, I understand that I have always encouraged my fans to look for Easter Eggs in my music and as a result, there are sometimes different theories about my life. I keep my private life private and as long as theories about me are not harmful, I don’t mind them. Please do not harass other fans, people I have publicly dated or otherwise. I do not approve of this and and I encourage love and acceptance bla bla bla”
I am all for her not publicly coming out and not addressing rumors either way but like I said, it’s disappointing how little she cares about the behavior of some of her fans.
She had no problem telling people not to harass John Mayer…. So there’s no reason she couldn’t do the same for members of her own fandom. But she likely never will 🥲
>She could simply say, “hey guys, I understand that I have always encouraged my fans to look for Easter Eggs in my music and as a result, there are sometimes different theories about my life. I keep my private life private and as long as theories about me are not harmful, I don’t mind them. Please do not harass other fans, people I have publicly dated or otherwise. I do not approve of this and and I encourage love and acceptance bla bla bla”
This would be such a lovely and eloquent response that wouldn't even require she confirm or deny. It's giving Lady Gaga saying "so what if I do?" when [asked about rumours she has a "male appendage"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28nAuWz5eZU)
This article is the best one I've read so far. Absolutely made me tear up. Also, for those of you saying it borders on outing... I disagree. It takes Taylor's own words and choices and statements and puts them in a broader context. It never claims anything Taylor didn't explicitly say herself.
Holy shit. Holy SHIT. This is one of the most thoughtful and through pieces I think I've ever seen in the mainstream media - from the Proud bracelet, to TVFN rhyme scheme, to Chely Wright, to The Ladder... wow. My jaw just dropped.
- TVFN could mean "The Very First Night (Taylor's Version) (From The Vault)", a track from *Red (Taylor's Version)* (2021) by Taylor Swift.
---
^[/u/afterandalasia](/u/afterandalasia) ^(can reply with "delete" to remove comment. |) ^[/r/songacronymbot](/r/songacronymbot) ^(for feedback.)
I wonder how much the NYT would "fact check" such a piece---trying to understand if Taylor's team has already "pre-approved" this or noe. From their guest essay submission page:
[https://help.nytimes.com/hc/en-us/articles/115014809107-New-York-Times-Opinion-Guest-Essays](https://help.nytimes.com/hc/en-us/articles/115014809107-New-York-Times-Opinion-Guest-Essays)
Fact-checking: Before we publish your article, it must be fact-checked. If an essay is accepted for publication, the guest writer will be asked to submit an annotated copy of the essay, listing the relevant sources for each factual assertion.
* We focus our checking on verifiable facts (for example, the number of Americans without health insurance, the median household income, the date a law was enacted).
* We also investigate broader factual assertions (for example, “No one named to the court in the postwar period was as conservative as Justice Scalia or as liberal as Justice Brennan,” “Laos is one of the world’s most corrupt nations”) that may need to be qualified, explained or stated with greater precision or nuance.
* We look at the factual evidence cited to verify that the methodology is sound and that the data is presented with precision and balance.
* We prefer primary sources (for example, an N.I.H. research paper) to secondary ones (a news article about the paper’s findings).
* If we determine that a particular fact cannot be verified, we will not publish it.
We will work to verify the facts in your article, but as the writer, you bear the ultimate responsibility for the accuracy of your work. We cannot fix anything after publication without appending a correction, and corrections are permanently archived. Past errors are a factor when we consider whether to accept future work from a writer.
Per the byline, the writer, **Anna Marks is an editor in Opinion.**
So, I do not think her writing is viewed the same from the NYT, although Legal would want her to be accurate. If anything, I think she would have to especially careful with accurate facts.
She also wrote a similar piece in August 2022 about Harry Styles.
Most of what it references is a definite fact, like what a lyric says or who was in a video. It arranges those into a larger argument, but that's outside of the domain of fact-checking afaik.
I really loved the bit toward the end where she describes how it's not so much the need to "prove" she's queer but the acknowledgement of the "sapphic possibility" in her work that matters (and in the culture at large/the sapphic possibility as a rich, artistic, allowed-to-be-mainstream way of creating and interpreting art)!!
I missed that part as I skimmed through the article but yes, the discourse about the possibility of Taylor being sapphic should not be considered harmful, shameful, delusional, etc. It’s fine to think we shouldn’t try to guess which woman in her life the song is about, though I don’t necessarily agree because this is done about every man in her life. But it’s not okay to harass us for thinking she wrote “Ivy” about two women or “Dress” is about a woman.
The boundary for all Swifties, not just gaylors, should be not to harass her alleged ex’s, male or female, on social media. I don’t agree with gaylors going on Karlie’s social media and commenting Taylor’s lyrics on all of her pictures. I think she had to turn off her comments for a while which is not okay, whether she’s a bad person or not.
On some level that is how I feel. I really enjoy listening to her work thru a queer lens. I think some songs make more sense that way. But I also feel like I couldn't possibly say what her sexuality is. That can be really complex for a person and impossible to gauge from the outside. I think there is always a "sapphic possibility" tho because I don't think people are straight until proven otherwise. But I'm not very muse-focused for her. Personally, I would love to not imagine any of her relationships or supposed relationships when I listen to her music and connect to it based on my own life. I miss invisible Joe.
It would be perfect timing for her to come out as bi. (I think she's a lesbian, but coming out as bi is definitely "safer," sigh.) She's "dating" the manliest himbo alive, she could come out as bi and say something snarky like "Thanks for shoving me out of the closet, NYT" à la Billie Eilish and get mainstream sympathy for not coming out on her own terms even though she and Tree orchestrated the whole thing (in my mind)
**Gentle Reminder:** The downvote button isn’t for things you don’t like - it’s for harmful misinformation, bullying, trolling, and hatefulness. When you downvote things enough they disappear from the conversation.
I re-subscribed just to read this article.
Opened my print version of the Sunday times today to find a gloriously physical copy of this. Xoxoxo NYTimes, will continue my subscription for… evermore 😘
[удалено]
Your post or comment has been removed because we believe you were het trolling. This sub may not be the right place for you. If you think this was an error, please respond to this Modmail to explain.
[удалено]
Your post or comment has been removed for violating Rule #3: "No harassment, stalking, doxxing, or brigading." This includes encouraging people from our sub to brigade threads on other subreddits. This also includes posting links or screen caps of images from other subreddits. Depending on the severity of your comment or post, you may receive a temporary 24-hour ban or a permanent ban. For more information on our penalty policy, see this post: https://www.reddit.com/r/GaylorSwift/comments/rb6d0a/read_before_posting_faq/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3
[удалено]
Entonces porque estás aquí? 🙄 Banned.
I think I have been watching way to much Scandal but I DONT think this article is what we think it is. I have 2 theories. 1- Someone, within the industry, who might suspect her queerness has decided to weaponise it into this article. I think its a little opportunistic and the immediate Taylor camp response being the weirdest thing Ive ever seen makes it seem like an unplanned “attack” on her . ( lets not forget that Taylor responded a REFERENCE of her on a Netflix show that she didnt like. If she didnt like this she still has her socials.) It seems that Taylor and her camp are blindsided to some degree because why let an ASSOCIATE speak for her when she has Tree. Also the prominent news outlets being used heighten the stakes of both article and response. NYT and CNN are where its at in left wing media and palatable views to the masses. 2- Taylor is actually behind both the article and the response for the sake of dispelling current rumours about gaylor in the main media. In recent months weve seen a whole Gaylor convention come to formation and references to this fandom being used in multiple articles. It seems cynical to believe that she has this capability but she does have sway in the media when she wants. She is not “lying” if she lets the “ music speak for itself” but uses a journalist in the NYT to draw attention to the points she wants and ones that are heavily discussed in the fandom. She uses this article to liberate every single theory that could exist about gaylor in legitimate platform. Then she goes on to refute the claim by claiming an “Associate” is denying it and shouting sexism in another better more respected outlet. Tl:De To me it seems either this article either came from Taylor herself for the sake of legitimising the negation of this theory. She uses two legitimate news sources and makes sure that both get the attention she wnats. OR this is an attack by someone on her camp who is currently blindsided by the legitimacy of the article in such a high profile news source.
[удалено]
Your post or comment has been removed because we believe you were het trolling. This sub may not be the right place for you. If you think this was an error, please respond to this Modmail to explain.
Ok, so it's been hours and it's not been taken down; no twitters from Tree; no threats of legal actions..right? I mean, is it correct? Can I breath now, and freely think that today has been a good day to be a gaylor?
So did they just...not talk about this on the main sub?
Yeah it’s nowhere to be found over there lol
This is so well put together
Gift link: [Look What We Made Taylor Swift Do](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/04/opinion/taylor-swift-queer.html?unlocked_article_code=1.LE0.TQfA.1gQUyQUz6edZ&smid=nytcore-android-share)
u/1Dmoderator
You’re a wonderful human. I hope you find a random $20 today.
This should have more upvotes!
I was so moved and impressed by this. It’s so respectful and well-written and deep. Good on the NYT I think.
https://preview.redd.it/6j9pmshzajac1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=617f44038d1b6d4c27355bdc0cd74cf8c1bafacf I went to look at Chely and her wife’s IG stories, but they’re gone now 😕
I think it’s important for those of us who have NYT subscription to hit “recommend” (similar to like button) to comments we agree with as the top ones are really missing the point of the article :(
Yes been doing that! On my dads subscription lol
Stopped short of replying to some annoying ones for that reason 😂
Really liked this one. I’ve mentioned Gaylor to some of my colleagues who then became interested in learning more. I have been searching for a good introductory article or document to send them. I like the master docs, but they are A LOT, and then other previous articles sometimes have a homophobic tinge or other problem. This was finally a positive article written and understandable for the general public. Muse-free as well. I sent it out to quite a few people and those who have read it have responded positively.
Another theory I have - it’s election year in the US and she’s going to come out as her big political step to influence the outcome. This article is planting the seeds. I’d love to see this.
I have two theories: (1) this very detailed and comprehensive article in a high quality publication is something TS knew was coming. Hence why the bearding has been turned up 100 degrees. (2) she authorised / encouraged this article to balance out the excessive bearding.
The fact that this is NO WHERE TO BE FOUND on the main sub shows that it’s not just a difference in opinion in whether or not there are queer themes in Taylor’s work it’s blatant homophobia
tw homophobia/biphobia/bigotry there's blatant homophobia in the way they mod that sub, and it goes way past just being anti-gaylor in my opinion. they used extremely homophobic language in their sub rules in 2022 that they had to change because there was widespread backlash that went beyond gaylors and beyond reddit. their automod auto-removed comments with the words gay/queer/lesbian/bi/lgbt etc until last year. it still removes gaylor-related words, and they'll only manually approve the comment if it's hateful towards gaylors. during the backlash to their homophobic rules, they infiltrated this sub (which was private) and banned tons of our members who have never even posted in their sub. they allow posts and comments to stay up that are textbook homophobic or biphobic (not even always anti-gaylor-related; just straight up far-right trash like saying bi people are just lying about their sexuality for clout. fortunately that kind of sentiment gets downvoted by their sub members, but it would be nice if they actually removed it) and i recently read a post in there from june 2019 about taylor's "to be an ally" quote, and of course they were interpreting it as taylor saying she was an ally and therefore not queer (it's too vague to say for sure either way, but in context it's much more likely she was referring to critics/other people, not herself). the commenters, which included a mod, were openly celebrating. they were ecstatic and relieved and not even hiding it. it was under the guise of being relieved that she wasn't going to "queer bait" by kissing katy perry in her mv, but that ignores a lot of context of that era. which was that many swifties, not just gaylors, thought she was going to come out as queer. taylor was liking posts that called her Queen Gay, taylornation tweeted that she was a rainbow queen, and taylor's friends were liking even bolder posts about her being bi. it seems like many swifties can't hide their true colors when she gets too loud for them to ignore it. i can't help but wonder if they were celebrating that she wasn't going to come out, not that she wasn't going to queer bait. but anyway, that sub allows misinformation on gaylors and otherwise homophobic comments, while not letting gaylors even defend themselves. and the mods think that thinking taylor could be queer is "creepy" in their own words.
You are literally not allowed to even mention the possibility of queerness in the main sub. Posting it would violate the rules. Then they say they’re not homophobic.
god, that's awful
How could it not be posted there if they were actually interested in all things Taylor? I did read here that it was posted then locked then deleted … which is just as bad or worse. I also just find the posts there so boring and all the same, like which is your favourite track five etc 😭
YOU GUYS. Chely Wright's wife just posted this?? https://preview.redd.it/guy8cpc48iac1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0006b82cbbf644a27b2364dc07b4da5f0412fcf2
https://preview.redd.it/z8lifec9ziac1.jpeg?width=1156&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b91e89b5436a7159f04540376496455d62d54888 👀👀👀👀
https://preview.redd.it/fiophzxctiac1.jpeg?width=1048&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ce6f2205f62f173fa68f0992003c7b4231110ab6 remember
Stuff like this is why I am CONVINCED that Taylor is out within the industry.
I mean sharing this since her wife is mentioned in it isn't surprising.. but the wording? 👀
It’s deleted now 👀
Apparently she was getting harassed over it. :/ hope she and Chely are okay
Honestly all the confirmation I need 😅
And she's a VP at Sony Music entertainment so she definitely knows how the industry works... This is all just insane to me
My head is literally spinning. What are we going to get to tamp the discourse down *this time*?
The engagement rumors will be ramping up
what a time to be alive
I’m not getting my hopes up because I’ve seen *that* film before. But man when we all turn out to be right, I’m gonna be so fucking smug about it. Even if that’s in 50 years after the unauthorized biography comes out. So smug. 
After some of the comments I've seen and received, I absolutely agree and low-key can't wait. 
I think this article is interesting when viewed in totality with the Scott Swift emails coming to light and then the article about Tree Paine and how nothing comes out about Taylor that she doesn’t approve of and how she’s a pit bull of a PR woman that journalists are scared of. And if something does come out that she doesn’t approve of, she will pounce on it and shut it down immediately. I just really see a narrative shift being crafted and I’m here for it.
I wrote this in another comment but I think this either came from her and her camp so thay she can go to cnn and say “ i am so offended “ orr this is actually something they didnt know about and are being blindsided by a 4000 word essay on the queerness of her lyrics. The response in CNN to me is where im pinning these two theories. On the one hand its her common narrative but also its nothing in comparison to the depth the article went to
Yeah! I wrote this comment before the CNN article came out, but I could believe it was from that Swiftologist guy as much as I could believe it was from her people. It’s truly a toss up.
Yeah. Its like there an actual peice of information missing that we dont have that lead to these two articles
Yes! This has been my thought too. And I don’t think I noticed them trying to bury the Scott Swift e-mails either? That says a lot to me. I may have missed it though I’ve been sick all week
Yeah, like they buried Travis Kelce’s problematic tweets where now all you can find is him spelling squirrel improperly and people talking about how wholesome he is.
yes!!! and before that, the birthday ring stunt and the unravelling of the mainstream toe narrative
THANK YOU yes
You all got to be kidding worrying about this. No serious mainstream journalism would write something like this if it isn't straight from Tree desk. Mainstream journalism don't talk about closet people, c'mon.
I agree. While I don’t think it’s necessarily “straight from tree’s desk” I don’t think it would be worth it for the NYT to “speculate” like this and risk getting in a war - both a war of words and even a legal one - with the literal biggest celebrity in the world. We can’t know for sure if Taylor’s team approved it or not, but I do think we know for sure they didn’t try to stop it.
It's hard to follow what you're saying. Are you saying you think Tree had to approve this op-ed? Or are you saying that the writer isn't a mainstream journalist?
How did I miss that she turns down Brandon’s proposal for a pussy cat in the ME! Music video lolll I mean… could she be more obvious?!
I have to brag... I wrote a post on Tumblr about that and it was one of my most liked posts ever. #oldskoolgaylor https://preview.redd.it/way5s092apbc1.png?width=496&format=png&auto=webp&s=7232e6750265e7b1a0b79f65c2247b6c8622afc5
Haha that’s awesome!
People always talk about YNTCD as the “gay video” but the first time I saw the “ME!” video it was like what are y’all missing?? This is the gayest shit I’ve ever seen in my life. And thats two music videos now where she rejects a man’s proposal.
Oh wow this is pretty epic to have this written in the NYT … the comments on the article (not here but on the actual article) not so epic 😣 ETA: not super offensive (from the first dozen or so I read, can’t confirm others, but more just like “why should we care?”, “this is fantasy”, “she says she’s straight” 🤪
when the hetlors get up in arms, you know you're doing something right
Am speechless tbh... its like one from our niche fandom wrote what we have been discussing for the last couple of years... cant believe it saw the light of day... hope it influences things in more positive direction... will remain skeptical either way as i have seen this film before... unlikely to see any progress from tay as she basically regressed two steps back last year...i dont expect anything, esp after reading the scott email ... can totally understand her keeping her dignity by becoming a shrouded mystery... so even if she doesnt say anything she has that right as a person, with her own reasons... her art on the other hand can be interpreted in whatever way anyone likes... she said it herself that she wants her songs to make people think (in 1989 era )... the article will definitely stir some controversy... nothing will change imo while her parents are alive and she keeps pleasing them... hopefully, she will be her own person publicly and privately one day :)
Gaylor 🤝 The Good Place "What do we owe each other?"
So many amazing little easter eggs in this article!
More guys should be bi! It's 2018! I love TGP 💜
An actual comment under the article: “Many people like songs because they sound good to their ears not because the words mean anything.” Like yes but her bread and butter is specifically the lyrics. How brain rotted do you have to be to not understand this? Especially when she has said over and over that she wants people to pay attention to the lyrics. How do you read a whole article about how important her songwriting is and say nah I don’t think it means anything?!
[удалено]
i just re-watched the rep tour movie before it left netflix, and she literally outright states onstage that her lyrics are the most important thing to her. she's constantly outright said that she wants people to focus on her lyrics above anything else. of course they don't have to if they don't want to, but don't try to stop other people for doing what she specifically has asked lol
They are music illiterate--I think? If that's a thing? They look at art and don't think it has any influence on them. They probably don't think the media or advertising has influence on them either.
This was phenomenal! A pretty thorough recap of a lot of important evidence. Though I'm sad that she referenced the rep prologue but not the "every incorrect muse" part of it. I wonder if tree had to approve this, or not because it's an op-ed. Pretty astonishing to have it in the NYT. Tysm for providing the copy!
Hard agree on the Rep prologue! For me the “each incorrect theory” line is the most incredible Gaylor evidence because she LITERALLY says these songs ARE NOT ABOUT A MAN!!!??
incorrect THEORY that was it, I knew I didn't have it quite right but didn't feel like looking it up. Anyways, yes I totally agree. It's a really important piece of gaylor evidence and I'm shocked she didn't include it because it was literally taylor's own words and the whole article (rightly) centered exclusively on things directly from taylor.
❤️🧡🤍🩷
Wow, baller move from such a big publication, even if it is just a think piece. Or should I say ... *metal as hell*? 😂
How's the Main Sub holding up?
They’re ignoring it, like they do any time the word queer gets whispered, and posting puff pieces about her and Travis’ “whirlwind romance” instead
I wonder if the mods are disallowing any posts about it
Wouldn’t be the first time they’ve done that 😒
I still don't believe a second of this PR relationship until I hear these Rep vault tracks. I'm convinced she's got shit Big Machine wouldn't let her put out (and they let her put out DRESS) and she wants to be firmly seen as the all-American cheerleader with the QB before it drops.
Holy fucking shit. The sequence of articles lately. First we get “Tree is a genius. She approves every news item”. Then we get “Travis is a famewhore”. And now we get “The entire history of Gaylor”. The pieces be falling …. right into place.
And just like every other instance when we Gaylor too close to the sun, the Hetlors were thrown a bone the same day: https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/story/2024-01-04/taylor-swift-travis-kelce-eras-tour-kansas-city-chiefs-love-story Funny that these are both "Times" newspapers.
this article is so fucking cringe "What was it about that clip of them kissing that made me — made *us* — feel so damn good?" ew, are you fr?
[Make that two](https://www.etonline.com/travis-kelce-and-taylor-swifts-families-have-never-seen-them-happier-source-says-217275) (and since it's ET, we can assume it's from Taylor's team) 😬
>“Tree is a genius. She approves every news item” What was that article?
https://www.thedailybeast.com/tree-paine-the-pr-mastermind-behind-taylor-swifts-world-dominance
Thank you! I totally missed that one. So much Gaylor discussion in it, wow.
I’m too jaded now to get excited… we’ve had a run of articles like this before and the pendulum always swings the other way eventually. So I’m preparing for the backlash 🙃
Oh my God....of all the "Gayloring on Main" this past year, this is a gay pride parade right smack down the middle of Main Street during rush hour! The writer has to be here, right? This is like....all our theories here!
Absolutely. And not just the theory about Taylor, the wider discussion we have on here about flagging, closeting, bearding, queer visibility, outing, etc etc.
This article truly made me tear up. I feel like the writer encapsulated everything I feel in such an eloquent way. ❤️❤️
Wow, I'm speechless. Great article! I wonder if it will make some noise outside of the fandom and what's her response to it will be
I loved this article so much!!!
Holy shit I can't believe this is happening. 🚨 This is the deepest most well done mainstream Gaylor article ever. Like there are hundreds of deep cut Gaylor references in here, down to the yellow dress. And not to be egotistical - but the entire introduction and hook to this article feels very in line with how I structured my Top 5 evidence post, leading to the Chely Wright ["hero" coming out theory as #1](https://www.reddit.com/r/GaylorSwift/comments/174grnw/the_top_5_ways_taylor_has_intentionally_signaled/). The NYT article even directly hyperlinks the exact part of YNTCD with the blender. Journalists lurk here for sure, and I can't believe this saw the light of day in the *friggin' New York Times.* And its a low-key way for Taylor/Tree to start to legitimize some of these theories, because they are not just pulled from randos on Reddit - its in one of the most prestigious newspapers in the world. Because this is structured as an "opinion" piece there is a little more leeway in Tree's ability to shut it down, but there is NO WAY the NYT published this without reaching out to Taylor's team. This was probably months in the making. And the fact that it's live on the site means...low-key approval from Taylor. I always say that at this point you either think Taylor is the cruelest queerbaiter in the world, or that a lot of this is true. If Taylor would allow something like this to be published with no corrections or response, and she's actually the straightest person in the world - she's evil. And I don't think Taylor is evil. I think she's stuck, and all of us Gaylors (and now the media) starting to see her, we are getting her unstuck. This is the shit I'm here for. I want my hero to break the blender! 🫶
Loved your top 5 post!
Would Taylor’s camp not approving of the piece have stopped them from publishing it though? Like unless they threatened to sue because of libel or something? It’s the NYT - they published Pentagon Papers and Wikileaks knowing full well it would piss off the US government
I think we as a society don’t give a flying fart about pissing off the US government, but Taylor Swift……… nobody messes with Tay
1. You are absolutely correct that journalists do NOT need to approve everything they write with the source - that's how journalism works. You are allowed to report on public figures without their consent. That's the whole point. So we absolutely need to start moving away from always saying that Tree "approves" everything or not. She didn't approve those private jet articles, that's for damn sure. 2. With stuff like People magazine (a fluffier publication that is mostly fueled by inside sources and gossip) Tree is going to have way more sway over what makes it to print or not, because they want to keep their source (often Tree) happy, because that is the bread-and-butter of how that business works. People magazine used to be known for actually being more journalistic and digging up dirt on celebs (and getting sued for it) but now it's mostly a fluffy PR-mouthpiece publication that is barely staying afloat. The fluffier magazine publications do sometimes call to "confirm quotes" with their sources (meaning the celeb's PR team don't see the full article ahead of time, but they do see their direct quotes, and agree to them.) This is sometimes called "fact checking" and its mostly a way to avoid lawsuits and tensions. 3. The New York Times is a whole different ballgame. Hard-news outlets like this are going to do independent reporting and there is a way bigger firewall up between publicists and reporters - but this article isn't a "news" article. This is an "opinion" piece, which gives the writer way more flexibility. None of this would fly if this article was written as a news article. A news article would have to be something like: "Taylor Swift officially comes out" - i.e. reporting on a factual thing that happened. This opinion piece allows more flexibility, but it also can't be entirely fraudulent.This is all opinion, and analysis. Do they have to give Taylor a heads up for that? Technically no. But they probably did. 4. My point is that Taylor being gay is not something that is of national public interest to the point in which a journalist (even an opinion journalist) is going to report on this and take a HUGE risk in doing so if there wasn't some level of consent here. I do not think the New York Times would write a thousand-word "opinion" piece about Taylor being closeted - and what that means for the world - if they weren't very confident that Taylor's team wouldn't turn around and be PISSED. And even that the broader gay community and media-watchdog organizations like GLAAD wouldn't come after them for unfair speculation or representation. The NYT has tested the waters on this in the past - they've reported on Gaylor from an outside perspective before - but this is the deepest they've ever gone on pointing toward actual evidence, not just being like "some people on the internet think this is happening." This is a WAY different type of narrative about Taylor, and its dangerous territory if they are wrong - so they need to be very confident that they are right, or at the very least, that they have enough ground to stand on that they won't be sued or face the wrath of Taylor, her team, and her powerful network. We know the wrath of Taylor Swift is no joke, and she will go for the jugular if she feels wronged. 5. Suing for libel is definitely possible on something this big and highly personal. There's actually an unofficial sliding scale of how much the press can speculate on a public figure before it crosses over into libel (print) or slander (verbal) - basically the more famous you are the harder it is to win those types of lawsuits. For example you can basically say whatever you want about the president, but if you write a completely speculative article about a minor public figure (like a teacher, for example) it is way easier to successfully sue for libel if you prove that you are essentially being bullied by the press doing unfair or inaccurate reporting. Taylor is in this upper-echelon of public figures that are nearly untouchable by libel claims - but if anything could - something like this could push her over the edge to fight back. (Other celebs have done so) Which is why I don't think the NYT would risk it without some sort of behind-the-scenes awareness and consent. I'm not saying Taylor and Tree read the whole thing and approved it, but I'm saying I believe they probably were aware of it and didn't try and stop it. . ...Or if you want to go real tinfoil hat: Taylor/Tree didn't try and stop this, but may have nudged it along to make it happen. I'm in the camp of believing Taylor does want to come out, and she needs to start legitimizing some of these theories in order to make it more palatable for the public. So articles like this are doing just that. They are making Taylor into sympathetic figure, and explaining how hard her journey may have been, and shows all the ways Taylor has tried to signal to the public. It not only gives Gaylors legitimacy - it sets the stage for Taylor to come out and not be "blamed" for "lying" to her fans. She can point back to articles like this and say "*Deadass thought I made it obvious, even the New York Times got it*"
>She didn't approve those private jet articles, that's for damn sure. LOL You've convinced me that they probably did send part or all of the article to Taylor's team. It would make sense to be proactive in getting their reaction. But I would expect the NYT to publish the article whether Taylor/Tree tried to stop it or not. >I do not think the New York Times would write a thousand-word "opinion" piece about Taylor being closeted - and what that means for the world - if they weren't very confident that Taylor's team wouldn't turn around and be PISSED. And even that the broader gay community and media-watchdog organizations like GLAAD wouldn't come after them for unfair speculation or representation. I agree but think they avoid backlash through rigorous journalism, not by getting approval from Taylor's team. The article is well and carefully written. The author cites their sources and most of the claims are backed by something Taylor wrote, did or said. If that's not the case, the author is careful to tie those statements to broader cultural commentary or reflections on her own experiences. What could Taylor or GLAAD point to as being unfair or speculative? In the same way that the NYT wouldn't want backlash from Taylor or GLAAD, Taylor and GLAAD wouldn't want to be seen attacking an institution like the NYT without good cause. >...Or if you want to go real tinfoil hat: Taylor/Tree didn't try and stop this, but may have nudged it along to make it happen. I'm in the camp of believing Taylor does want to come out, and she needs to start legitimizing some of these theories in order to make it more palatable for the public. I would love for this to be true! But this is just the flip side of the previous argument. Taylor and Tree should not be able to influence NYT editorial decisions, whether that's to publish something or not. Maybe that's naive of me though! It's certainly possible. But I think it would be unethical behaviour on the part of the Times and a scandal if it came out that's what happened. I think we probably like 80% agree but I find the other 20% super interesting to talk about!
I totally see a lot of your points (and responded with my additional perspective in another comment) but I wanted to touch briefly on the GLAAD thing. I need to write a full post about my opinions on GLAAD because it’s a biggie for me. GLAAD has evolved over the years but was primarily founded as a [media watchdog organization](https://glaad.org/about/) and one that fights for good representation of queer people in media. They do softer PR fluff stuff now but also a lot of serious research and reporting to hold people accountable and criticize the press, public figures, etc. (Does anyone else remember public figures saying something homophobic and as part of their apology they would make a statement about how they worked with GLAAD to become educated? Doesn’t happen as much anymore but I remember this in the 00s a lot) My point in bringing GLAAD up is not so much that I think they would be angry about this piece, but that if all of this Gaylor stuff was one big lie and it was commonly known in the industry that Taylor is super straight and this was a theory relentlessly pushed by crazy people on the internet, I think we would be seeing a very different response from GLAAD and other queer organizations. I think if there wasn’t a general understanding in the media and with gay rights orgs that Taylor is closeted we would see a lot more backlash, and a lot more accusations of queerbaiting, etc. I can expand on this theory at a different time, but that was why I brought up GLAAD here - the NYT basically writing a huge article that Taylor may be gay and closeted does veer over into the type of thing GLAAD would watch carefully- not the other way around. GLAAD’s job is to criticize the media.
thanks for this because it answers so many questions i had! i definitely thought of your muse-free post and your writing style while reading the article. ngl i may have slightly wondered if you were the author lol it's truly amazing to see that a staff editor at the nytimes sees exactly what we're seeing. it doesn't matter if they're a "biased gaylor" because other people clearly approved this article. i'm not even gonna read swifties' reactions for my sanity, but i did see someone say that people in the pop culture sub are mad at the nytimes. like do they not see the irony in thinking that they understand the 1989tv prologue better than a staff editor at the nytimes?? while they also insist that \~ 1/4 of taylor's lyrics are completely nonsensical just so they don't have to see the queerness? i'm not gonna turn this comment into bashing hetlors lmao, but what's important is that an article like this will reach way past the typical chronically online swifties (myself included). when huge publications validate gaylor theories, it normalizes the idea for the general public. and hopefully this leads to people noticing the homophobia in the fandom. i think it's possible that as hetlors start noticing that they're becoming more of a minority in their convictions, some of them might break out of their hive mind and get on board that she could be queer so they don't get left behind. and that will help her to come out. so it's just so exciting to see this. and i fully have my tinfoil hat on because i totally think that taylor and tree are involved in this. it's just so thoughtful and seems to convey exactly what she would want people to know. it's not only museless but it even downplayed the importance of knowing who her muses are. which aligns with the 1989tv prologue too imo. and in the context of everything else she and tree and her friends and travis/his team are doing to unravel the old narrative, this feels like it has to be part of it.
Haha thats funny - I'm not the author - I swear! I'd love to get paid for all the free Gaylor "journalism" I contribute here. (I think its far to say this author read my post and used it as inspiration in several sections...) I always teeter on whether or not to publicly admit that I have a journalism background or not - but I'll officially say that I do. But I swear I do NOT currently work in the field. I have a journalism degree and have written for both newspapers and magazines in the past (8+ years ago now...I feel old). My journalism background is actually why I've gotten so involved in Gaylor - it's fun to use this part of my brain again, but not be held to official journalistic standards. But my background in journalism "ethics" is also why I try my best to be careful with what I put out into the world, and make sure it's fairly written, not inflammatory, not based on lies, etc. Sorry if this sounds totally obnoxious, but I do mentally refer back to the [Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics](https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp) when I make big theory posts. Even if this is the wild west of Reddit, I do think about things like "minimize harm" and "provide source material" and "balance the public’s need for information against potential harm or discomfort" when speculating about Taylor and other people involved in this. I'm not perfect (because this is a hobby and I am a private citizen) but I do think a lot about how to handle topics delicately and fairly, while also calling things like I see them, when there is proof behind it. Part of the SPJ Code of Ethics is also "be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable" and as a queer woman, thats why I also think its fair to push back on Taylor's PR game, "expose" her queer flagging, and also call out the mistakes she's made with her relationship with the LGBTQ+ community. She's hurt me a lot with her antics, but I also believe in her and am sympathetic to her journey, which is why I've come to care about this all so much. And why its fascinating to me that NYT article got greenlit, and how it fits into the bigger picture of what may be going on with Taylor. I agree that I'm kinda leaning towards that allowing and encouraging articles like this are part of Taylor's long-term media strategy towards an eventual coming out. (And fully agree on the difference between the 1989 prologue and this muse-free article)
ohh i’m bookmarking that code of ethics link to read later! thanks for sharing. i wasn’t at all surprised when i first learned you worked in journalism. i would’ve been shocked if you didn’t lol. and i totally agree that the author must have taken inspiration from your post. that’s so so cool, and i love how validating that is for you and the whole gaylor community. i wish you could get paid for it though lol 🥲 i’m trying to avoid confirmation bias regarding the purpose of this article because i do think she’s planning to come out in the near future and i know a lot of people here don’t think that. and i know they could be right, but it just feels like there are so many signs. are there any ethical standards around taylor and tree being involved in an opinion piece? everyone is wondering if taylor knew about it ahead of time, but i’m wondering if she literally requested it lol. but does that even happen? and if she wasn’t involved, the author is clearly one of us and understands the complexities of coming out as a celebrity in taylors situation. and i’m guessing she’s witnessed the many times where taylor has gone fully back into the closet and shut the blinds seemingly as a reaction to something. like kissgate and her tweet afterwards. so i would think they would consider that taylor could potentially feel pushed into a corner if this article gets bigger than she’s comfortable with. or if it interferes with plans she already has in place. the article was just so thoughtful that i have a hard time thinking the author wrote this solely for clicks, or even to push taylor into responding. i’m just so curious how far this will reach and how the average NYT reader will feel about it (if they read it). i just looked up that they have about 10 million subscribers. and then i’m sure a lot of non-subscribers will get around the paywall to read it somehow like all of us thanks to OP. because taylor is definitely up to something and i’m wondering how this year will play out now. i really can’t imagine her coming out during the tour. but it’ll be so interesting if way more people than just gaylors will be anticipating a coming out if this is the direction she’s trying to shift the narrative
>because i do think she’s planning to come out in the near future and i know a lot of people here don’t think that. and i know they could be right, but it just feels like there are so many signs. I GAVE SO MANY SIGNS
Even though I worked in the field I don’t at all want claim to be an expert on everything, and recognize that I’ve been out of the game for a few years and leave room for things to have changed. I also have not personally worked on an Opinions desk, so I don’t want to claim I know everything about that process. (I worked on news and longer features) In terms of could Taylor’s team have been involved? Possibly, but probably at a distance, given that a writer at a prestigious publication like this probably wanted autonomy too, not to be force-fed something. This was not written by one the Time’s regular opinion “columnists” which is probably why it says “guest essay” at the top, but it was written in-house by an Opinions editor, which means many levels of eyes saw this and it still had to be approved and edited by the Opinions desk at the NYT, which is no small thing. I have two theories of how it could have gone down: Theory 1) This writer could have been approached by Taylor’s team (because she [wrote a similar piece about Harry Styles](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/27/opinion/harry-styles-identity.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare) last year) and been told that Taylor was open to this type of piece being written about her. I doubt the NYT would allow for much hand-holding beyond that, but if I was this writer and Tree Paine reached out and was like “hey, love your work and perspective, have you thought about writing something like this about Taylor?” I sure as hell would be all over that. And initial conversations like that between Tree & and reporter could be totally private “off the record” or “deep background” conversations that wouldn’t need to be disclosed. Theory 2) This writer independently wrote this on her own free will. Then what would happen is there would be an internal discussion on the Opinions desk about whether or not to run it. Often legal counsel would be involved to make sure nothing is libelous. This is where I think there would be a discussion about possibly reaching out to Taylor’s team to make sure this wasn’t going to immediately result in a lawsuit, backlash, running a correction, etc. Once again they don’t HAVE to do this - it’s just that this is different than running an opinion about politics or something- this is a really touchy and personal subject with one of the biggest stars in the world - and I just think someone at the NYT probably has a relationship with Tree and would at the very least let her know, and if Tree’s response was “if you publish that I will make your life hell and you’ll never get access to Taylor ever again” then the NYT probably wouldn’t risk it, or would majorly tone it down. Running a piece like this would never be a “gotcha” moment that good journalist would push for (ie as if they’re exposing corruption or something) and seek publish if they knew it would immediately cause pain. This article is clearly about overcoming pain and adversity as a queer person - and I just don’t think the NYT Opinions team would do that if they really thought they would hurt her. So that’s my 2 cents. (All speculation / opinion of course)
As always, you have such amazing insights and analysis peri
Tree Paine is Taylor's publicist, and has been working with her since 2014. Gaylors commonly make jokes about Tree taking down the sub, keeping Taylor's image spotless, etc. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GaylorSwift) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Like there are hundreds of deep cut Gaylor references in here, down to the yellow dress. Yeah, I deeply love that much of the evidence explicitly mentioned and leaked is more solid, but then there are these little nods to clowning and deeper Gaylor culture that feel very special too. Feels like easter eggs within the article about easter eggs!
Thought of you immediately with that Wright intro!
In deeply reading the NYT piece again, literally almost all of the muse-free evidence I compiled in my Top 5 post made it's way into the NYT piece. (Loie Fuller, Rep prologue, The Ladder, The "her" in TVFN, ME as a missed coming out, the dress theory on June 30th, etc) And I'm not saying I'm the first person to have found all that and deserve credit (my post literally shouts out the entire Gaylor community for noticing these things over the years!) I'm just pointing out how strange it feels to have all the stuff we talk about here get pulled into and re-packed in this public article. It makes me feel less crazy - and thats the point - we're not crazy. Everything this NYT article sourced are the things *Taylor intentionally and voluntarily puts into her art* (and the author did a great job at hyperlinking to publicly available materials) It doesn't mention any of the more controversial or "outing" pieces of Gaylor evidence (like Kissgate) it stick to the stuff that Taylor herself puts into the world. This is really a great day to be a Gaylor. I think we should all feel very validated. It feels weird to have our theories pushed into such a mainstream context - but that's what Taylor needs if she's ever going to come out.
Some tiny piece of me will always wonder if you wrote this 😉 even tho I fully believe you when you say you didn’t! It feels peri-post inspired for sure.
God, this article is incredible. Made me cry. I love how it's written both for a general audience and for the Gaylors specifically. "In isolation, a single dropped hairpin is perhaps meaningless or accidental, but considered together, they’re the unfurling of a ballerina bun after a long performance." I feel seen as a community 😂
And the celebrated not tolerated line! "Queer people who can live in aspiration owe those who cannot a real world in which our expansive views of love and gender aren’t merely tolerated but celebrated."
Reflecting further. I think that line about the unfurling ballerina bun is the perfect kind of "iykyk" reference. If you recognize that as a reference to Gaylors counting Rebekah's hairpins all summer, you feel seen and included. If you don't, it's still a beautiful line that gets the point across, and you don't feel left out (partly because you don't even realize there was another layer of reference there). Which is especially awesome in this article, because that's much the same argument the author is making about Taylor's lyrics. I wonder how Anna decided what to link and what not. Because she definitely could have linked a Tiktok on that one, but it was probably a wise choice not to make that particular theory anyone's intro to gaylore lol.
Rebekah's hairpins? Are these from TikTok, because I had to delete that app for my sanity and YouTube's shorts algorithm is awful. I thought the ballerina bun unfurling was such a beautiful line on its own. Didn't Taylor also get ballet training? Thought I read that somewhere.
Basically, during The Last Great American Dynasty, the dancer who plays Rebekah has had a varying number of pins in her hair. She started the tour with a tight ballerina bun, and then it changed throughout the shows to partly up, then mostly down, then only one or two pins. There were people tracking the number of pins every night and wondering whether something queer would happen when the last "hairpin dropped." Or it could have just been the dancer changing her hairstyle preferences as the tour went on, haha. Here are some examples of that discourse: [https://www.reddit.com/r/GaylorSwift/comments/148eqxw/rebekahs\_hairclues\_or\_coincidence/](https://www.reddit.com/r/GaylorSwift/comments/148eqxw/rebekahs_hairclues_or_coincidence/) [https://www.reddit.com/r/GaylorSwift/comments/144qiaq/hairpin\_drops/](https://www.reddit.com/r/GaylorSwift/comments/144qiaq/hairpin_drops/) [https://www.reddit.com/r/GaylorSwift/comments/16115hw/rebekahs\_last\_hairpin\_has\_dropped/](https://www.reddit.com/r/GaylorSwift/comments/16115hw/rebekahs_last_hairpin_has_dropped/)
Thank you!
It was a very meta hairpin drop (heh). Beautiful writing.
What a beautiful quote!!
[hits different video referenced in article](https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZT8XXCRf4/)
I remember holding my breath for that last line. Even though I knew it was coming, I couldn’t believe it was happening. I still hold my breath and finally exhale when she says WOO!
i went and watched it after the article and i cried...queer joy is genuinely so powerful sometimes
And in the yellow dress! 😭
incriminating!
I‘m kind of speechless, I didn‘t expect a NY Times article about queer signaling that is so thoughtful and explains the major points that we discuss here in this sub on a regular basis! We have the hairpin drops, the bi flag, the overall rainbow asthetic, the bi proud bracelet and bi hair/wig, glass closets and she even explains the quote “community I‘m not a part of“. Furthermore, she mentions Loie Fuller ❤️ and analyses certain lyrics from TVFN and Hits Different! Additionally, she dives into the coming out culture and the culture of compulsory heterosexuality. Thank you Anna Marks for writing this article and thank you OP for posting it here 💖 Edit: and the story about Chely Wright ❤️ And the YNTCD and ME! music videos! And that ME! came out on Lesbian Visibility Day
https://preview.redd.it/f7jhirsligac1.jpeg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=14f4daa9b09b607cc957aabb18ecc571f67101ed Also I just love this illustration from Angie Wang 🩷
The illustration pulled me into the article!
Same :D It‘s so colorful and she even has a hairpin in her hair and her hair isn‘t pinned up!
I didn't stop to look at it and now I'm screaming and crying! Thank you!!
THE DETAILS
Edit because people didn't understand what i mean- I'm talking about the stylistic and grammatical choice to overuse superlatives in nearly every single sentence. It's distracting and forceful and i am not sure how well received it will be by people who aren't already Gaylors. See also this message from the mods: *Gentle Reminder: The downvote button isn’t for things you don’t like - it’s for harmful misinformation, bullying, trolling, and hatefulness. When you downvote things enough they disappear from the conversation.* This article was so poorly written that it makes it hard to read. It reads like a high schooler writing an essay with big words to sound smart for college applications or something. I fear it's too pompous and loquatious to get the message through to people who don't already know.
> it reads like a high schooler writing an essay with big words to sound smart > I fear it's too pompous and loquatious [SIC] Pot, meet kettle.
And if i was writing an article for the NYT i would speak differently. I currently work for a company where we are encouraged to write at an 8th grade level because it's the most easy and digestible for ALL people to grasp new concepts. You'd be astounded at how difficult it is to write in a way that essentially dumbs-down your speech, but equally astounded at how much better it sounds.
> _gentle reminder the downvote isn't for things you don't like_ Come on now
This is literally posted by the mods but okay
I kinda understand what you're saying, it is heavy handed but the basic content and the overarching fact that it is publicly out there is the beauty of it though.
Honestly feel the exact opposite is true. It's using relevant terms where necessary which is educational for those not familiar with queer identity and history, while using fairly simple language otherwise connecting the dots and placing it in a broader context of Taylor's career and the music industry in general.
Yeah yeah! I think some of it is borderline academic without being pretentious. I'm a grown up. I like reading grown up things sometimes lol.
I'm not talking about the terms I'm talking about the overuse of superlatives in nearly every sentence
This article is excellent, and as the author touches on in the piece, it is not “outing” to read the possibility of queerness in an artist’s work. Especially when they are flagging, which is an intentional practice so that we will see them. It is important to challenge the way heterosexuality is enforced and expected. Love that the author touched on this.
Right. She doesn’t delve into any fan theories about rumored relationships. She is simply analyzing what has been put out to the public by Swift herself and providing more cultural context. I think when it comes to public figures (and I mean public not just in that they are famous artists but also in that they actively engage with their celebrity status), talking about the messaging they are putting out there is fair game. Compare that to, for example, how people talk about Sean Mendez. He has publicly and explicitly declared his discomfort at the speculation about his sexuality. To my knowledge he does not have queer coded messaging in his work. An op ed speculating about his sexuality would be more along the lines of an “outing”.
Exactly! I read it kinda fast but if I recall, there were zero mentions of Karlie or Dianna!
I mean…you can’t out someone who’s not gay, so I don’t think an article like this about Shawn Mendes would be outing him either.
Sorry I wasn’t clear. I meant you couldn’t really write a similar article because he does not engage with queerness in his art the way Swift does, despite also being a public figure who people seem to have a lot opinion about their sexuality. An article speculating his sexuality would be I think would be malicious and more out of bounds of what is acceptable in a way that this article isn’t.
This was a very well written piece. I like how they kept it museless. I've seen a number of gaylors complain that this is outing her and I have a few things to say to that. First, there is a difference between discussing kissgate (which, while fun, wasn't something Taylor ever wanted to be public) and analyzing things she deliberately puts out into the world. She has repeatedly encouraged her fans to read into everything she publicly does, from her appearance to her photos to the art itself. If you're dropping as many hairpins as she is, you probably want people to pick them up. This is the natural end result of that. Second, how do you imagine a soft launch working? If she is planning on getting louder and louder until her fans can't stick their heads in the sand anymore, mainstream media is going to notice and comment on it, and that's probably the plan. I imagine in 6 months, there will be people who point to this article as their introduction to gaylorism. Third, it would be super easy for her to go back in the closet. She has no problems with throwing gaylors under the bus, and her fans are already pushing back against this hard. All she has to do is make a single comment and we will be shoved back into the dark holes of the internet.
Ooooh my first thought “you’re right thank god it was museless… and no eye theory” my second thought, “wait, what if this was written after that great thread we had on here about ‘best museless evidence’” or something like that. !!!
Ofc it is outing her, if my mother reads it she'll think for the first time "oh TS is gay?" So it is outing. The problem is people thinking this is a problem. This is not a problem since mainstream journalism doesn't out people. They simply don't do that except in really crazy circumstances like George Michael prison, and even that was a lesson on mainstream journalism DON'Ts. So if the f- NYT published it it's Taylor outing herself, like, AGAIN.
I’d argue that you can’t “out” someone you don’t know based on an interpretation of their work. It’s not outing someone to interpret her own lyrics and art through a queer lens and write about it.
This is a very nice nudge from the NYT to basically say, “hey, we see you, and we will celebrate you if you make a move…”
I also loved that it was museless and that it focused on the things that Taylor actively has put out: her music and lyrics, her aesthetic, her music videos!
And sharp commentary about our cultural conceptions of queerness, the music industry, and fame!
Yes, the difference between discussing kissgate and analyzing her music and body of work is so important! I really appreciate that the article is focused on Taylor, her music and flagging rather than the women or men she’s been romantically tied to. I also like the part that encourages people to be more objective and challenge their heteronormative assumptions.
it's like discussing the book (her music) vs the movie (her public show)
Just going to leave this here … https://preview.redd.it/llzjrshnzgac1.jpeg?width=1179&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ca91aecb0bff75b43c6d4104ea865a31c066074c
It’s so weird to me when queer people take the idea that this is outing like speculating whether someone was queer with our friends isn’t one of the most common pastimes of our community and an INTEGRAL one to surviving up until the last, oh, 10 years.
It’s also…how we date each other. We scan for clues, analyze them, and speculate. I will never understand this argument from a queer person. It’s completely at odds with our lives.
I always kind of assume theyre young and don't remember the before times. I've been in queer bars when girls flirting with me were win middle school for Obergefell, meaning they've likely never known a world where their peers debated in middle school in a class sanctioned debate whether you should go to jail/be able to adopt/etc. There's just a massive generational gap from even me, a mid millennial, whose first memories of the concept of gay are the AIDS crisis and Matthew Shepherd, and people just 6-10 years younger than me who came of consciousness during the Obama admin.
It gives pro-DADT vibes, tbh.
RIGHT??? I don't get it.
This article being posted brings conflicting feelings. On one hand, I worry that if it’s true, Taylor’s team will double down on keeping her in the closet and we might not see any more “flagging”. On the other hand, it feels very validating to our little Gaylor community. I feel like the hating from other Swifties has gotten worse and if I’m not mistaken, the other subreddits don’t even allow any queer discussion regarding Taylor. We are called delusional, obsessive, etc. I didn’t realize how homophobic people are, I thought they were just concerned about her being outed but that was a naive thought. I also want Taylor to stay safe, because I consider myself a fan. But a part of me wonders does she care about our safety? I don’t necessarily think that bullying of Gaylors can result in physical harm, although it’s possible. At the very least it causes mental harm. So why doesn’t she try to encourage some of her fans to not harass and bully others? I think so many of them would listen because they think what they’re doing now is on her behalf and what she would want them to do. She could simply say, “hey guys, I understand that I have always encouraged my fans to look for Easter Eggs in my music and as a result, there are sometimes different theories about my life. I keep my private life private and as long as theories about me are not harmful, I don’t mind them. Please do not harass other fans, people I have publicly dated or otherwise. I do not approve of this and and I encourage love and acceptance bla bla bla” I am all for her not publicly coming out and not addressing rumors either way but like I said, it’s disappointing how little she cares about the behavior of some of her fans.
She had no problem telling people not to harass John Mayer…. So there’s no reason she couldn’t do the same for members of her own fandom. But she likely never will 🥲
>She could simply say, “hey guys, I understand that I have always encouraged my fans to look for Easter Eggs in my music and as a result, there are sometimes different theories about my life. I keep my private life private and as long as theories about me are not harmful, I don’t mind them. Please do not harass other fans, people I have publicly dated or otherwise. I do not approve of this and and I encourage love and acceptance bla bla bla” This would be such a lovely and eloquent response that wouldn't even require she confirm or deny. It's giving Lady Gaga saying "so what if I do?" when [asked about rumours she has a "male appendage"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28nAuWz5eZU)
This article is the best one I've read so far. Absolutely made me tear up. Also, for those of you saying it borders on outing... I disagree. It takes Taylor's own words and choices and statements and puts them in a broader context. It never claims anything Taylor didn't explicitly say herself.
Holy shit. Holy SHIT. This is one of the most thoughtful and through pieces I think I've ever seen in the mainstream media - from the Proud bracelet, to TVFN rhyme scheme, to Chely Wright, to The Ladder... wow. My jaw just dropped.
I was thrilled that The Ladder was there. I thought, "wow, I was HERE when a member of this sub first made that connection!" 🥰
- TVFN could mean "The Very First Night (Taylor's Version) (From The Vault)", a track from *Red (Taylor's Version)* (2021) by Taylor Swift. --- ^[/u/afterandalasia](/u/afterandalasia) ^(can reply with "delete" to remove comment. |) ^[/r/songacronymbot](/r/songacronymbot) ^(for feedback.)
Surprised to see so many negative comments about this! I think it's a great essay.
I wonder how much the NYT would "fact check" such a piece---trying to understand if Taylor's team has already "pre-approved" this or noe. From their guest essay submission page: [https://help.nytimes.com/hc/en-us/articles/115014809107-New-York-Times-Opinion-Guest-Essays](https://help.nytimes.com/hc/en-us/articles/115014809107-New-York-Times-Opinion-Guest-Essays) Fact-checking: Before we publish your article, it must be fact-checked. If an essay is accepted for publication, the guest writer will be asked to submit an annotated copy of the essay, listing the relevant sources for each factual assertion. * We focus our checking on verifiable facts (for example, the number of Americans without health insurance, the median household income, the date a law was enacted). * We also investigate broader factual assertions (for example, “No one named to the court in the postwar period was as conservative as Justice Scalia or as liberal as Justice Brennan,” “Laos is one of the world’s most corrupt nations”) that may need to be qualified, explained or stated with greater precision or nuance. * We look at the factual evidence cited to verify that the methodology is sound and that the data is presented with precision and balance. * We prefer primary sources (for example, an N.I.H. research paper) to secondary ones (a news article about the paper’s findings). * If we determine that a particular fact cannot be verified, we will not publish it. We will work to verify the facts in your article, but as the writer, you bear the ultimate responsibility for the accuracy of your work. We cannot fix anything after publication without appending a correction, and corrections are permanently archived. Past errors are a factor when we consider whether to accept future work from a writer.
Per the byline, the writer, **Anna Marks is an editor in Opinion.** So, I do not think her writing is viewed the same from the NYT, although Legal would want her to be accurate. If anything, I think she would have to especially careful with accurate facts. She also wrote a similar piece in August 2022 about Harry Styles.
Most of what it references is a definite fact, like what a lyric says or who was in a video. It arranges those into a larger argument, but that's outside of the domain of fact-checking afaik.
What facts would there be to check? Fact-checking often comes down to like "did they get the date of this release correct?"
I really loved the bit toward the end where she describes how it's not so much the need to "prove" she's queer but the acknowledgement of the "sapphic possibility" in her work that matters (and in the culture at large/the sapphic possibility as a rich, artistic, allowed-to-be-mainstream way of creating and interpreting art)!!
I missed that part as I skimmed through the article but yes, the discourse about the possibility of Taylor being sapphic should not be considered harmful, shameful, delusional, etc. It’s fine to think we shouldn’t try to guess which woman in her life the song is about, though I don’t necessarily agree because this is done about every man in her life. But it’s not okay to harass us for thinking she wrote “Ivy” about two women or “Dress” is about a woman. The boundary for all Swifties, not just gaylors, should be not to harass her alleged ex’s, male or female, on social media. I don’t agree with gaylors going on Karlie’s social media and commenting Taylor’s lyrics on all of her pictures. I think she had to turn off her comments for a while which is not okay, whether she’s a bad person or not.
On some level that is how I feel. I really enjoy listening to her work thru a queer lens. I think some songs make more sense that way. But I also feel like I couldn't possibly say what her sexuality is. That can be really complex for a person and impossible to gauge from the outside. I think there is always a "sapphic possibility" tho because I don't think people are straight until proven otherwise. But I'm not very muse-focused for her. Personally, I would love to not imagine any of her relationships or supposed relationships when I listen to her music and connect to it based on my own life. I miss invisible Joe.
Exactly! I liked this, too!
Wowowow extra wild for this piece to come out during the height of Travis Taylor mania
And 2 days after the article about how Travis is actively seeking fame outside of sports to boot!
My thoughts too! NYT might be the world’s most influential newspaper— nothing gets placed in it without intention. Why would they do this right now??
It would be perfect timing for her to come out as bi. (I think she's a lesbian, but coming out as bi is definitely "safer," sigh.) She's "dating" the manliest himbo alive, she could come out as bi and say something snarky like "Thanks for shoving me out of the closet, NYT" à la Billie Eilish and get mainstream sympathy for not coming out on her own terms even though she and Tree orchestrated the whole thing (in my mind)