Taylor Swift Associate Labels NY Times Piece Speculating on Her Sexuality: 'Invasive, Untrue and Inappropriate'

An opinion piece in the New York Times speculating that Taylor Swift may be gay is getting pushback from the pop superstar's associates, CNN has learned.

The 5,000 word guest essay, by section editor Anna Marks, looks at Swift's evolving relationship to the LGBTQ+ community over the years. Towards the end, she writes: "Whether she is conscious of it or not, Ms. Swift signals to queer people – in the language we use to communicate with one another – that she has some affinity for queer identity. There are some queer people who would say that through this sort of signaling, she has already come out, at least to us. But what about coming out in a language the rest of the public will understand?"

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

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

But a close associate to Swift saw Marks' contentions to be a bridge too far. "Because of her massive success, in this moment there is a Taylor-shaped hole in people's ethics," a person close to the situation, who requested anonymity to speak candidly, told CNN. "This article wouldn't have been allowed to be written about Shawn Mendes or any male artist whose sexuality has been questioned by fans."

"There seems to be no boundary some journalists won't cross when writing about Taylor, regardless of how invasive, untrue, and inappropriate it is – all under the protective veil of an 'opinion piece,'" the person added.

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

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

What is most unusual is that the reserved Times would publish a piece that speculated on a celebrity's sexuality. In anticipation of such pushback, Marks wrote:

"I know that discussing the potential of a star's queerness before a formal declaration of identity feels, to some, too salacious and gossip-fueled to be worthy of discussion."

Marks continued, "I share many of these reservations," before adding: "But the stories that dominate our collective imagination shape what our culture permits artists and their audiences to say and be. Every time an artist signals queerness and that transmission falls on deaf ears, that signal dies.

"Recognizing the possibility of queerness – while being conscious of the difference between possibility and certainty – keeps that signal alive."

Marks was also called out in the comment section of the article. One named Swiftie wrote: "Swiftie here. Gaylor theories (as they are called within the community) are an invasion of her privacy, and best kept to the gross corners of fan fiction websites which they largely came from. If she's not straight (which is an assertion I doubt), let her tell people on her own terms. Don't out someone not comfortable to come out of the closet, and don't devote so much time to theorizing about her sexuality. Yes, people can speculate about celebrities, but there is a very real harm that could come out of speculation on someone's sexuality. My fellow Swifties, save the rabid theorizing for Reputation (Taylor's Version)!"

Reader RG from Vermont writes: "I love Taylor Swift and am bisexual myself. However, I still don't think we should be writing essays in major news outlets speculating on a person's sexuality. Maybe she is gay, maybe she isn't. All I know is that it's not my business, and it shouldn't be the NYT's either."

And Jack from North Carolina put it simply: "Who really cares? To me it boils down to – do I like the music. Put an earworm in my brain, and I couldn't even see the performer, my brain is too busy bouncing along to the tune."