After running an opinion piece questioning Taylor Swift’s sexuality, The New York Times quickly learned what it means to have bad blood with a devoted fan base.
Swifties went scorched earth on the publication, irate that they would publish an article suggesting Swift might be gay. The entirety of the piece was a probe into Swift’s every move since becoming famous, positing that certain decisions or statements made by Swift were actually sublte clues referencing her hidden sexuality.
A representative for Swift did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.
The article generated massive backlash on social media, with users sharing their vitriol.
“Just cancelled my subscription. This article is sexist and grossly inappropriate,” one person posted on X.
“Wow… throwing ethics out the window early this year,” another user commented.
Other fans were horrified that a prestigious outlet such as The New York Times would publish something so egregious.
“This essay is a fireable offense – poorly written, horribly invasive, and objectionable in myriad ways. It is both galling and weird that NYT would publish a speculative piece on someone’s gender identity. This is beneath the editorial standards of NYT Opinion. Do Better,” they admonished.
“I’m not a big fan of hers but I am totally disgusted by this & will be canceling my New York Times subscription tomorrow morning,” another revealed.
The public’s fascination with Swift’s romantic life has long remained tabloid fodder, much to the singer’s chagrin. When Swift re-released her album “1989 (Taylor’s Version)” this past October, originally released in 2014, she also shared a prologue that described how the media’s fascination with her private life had evolved and how she had channeled that into her music.
“It became clear to me that for me there was no such thing as casual dating, or even having a male friend who you platonically hang out with. If I was seen with him, it was assumed I was sleeping with him. And so I swore off hanging out with guys, dating, flirting, or anything that could be weaponized against me by a culture that claimed to believe in liberating women but consistently treated me with the harsh moral codes of the Victorian era,” she wrote.
To change the narrative, Swift spent more time with her illustrious girl squad, or friend group, full of highly successful female actors, musicians and models.
“Being a consummate optimist, I assumed I could fix this if I simply changed my behavior. I swore off dating and decided to focus only on myself, my music, my growth, and my female friendships,” Swift continued in her prologue. “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.”
Fans on social media were quick to reference this particular message made by Swift in conjunction with The New York Times article.
“Except she asked people to stop doing this. Read the 1989 prolong. She has only dated men publicly. This is ignoring public statements from the singer. Misrepresenting events and ignoring obvious answers,” one person lamented to X.
“Please read her 1989 prologue again,” another person implored.
The article, written by Anna Marks, also addressed Swift’s latest relationship with Kansas City Chiefs tight end Travis Kelce. Marks questioned if the relationship is a “Romance for the ages? strategic brand partnership? performance art for entertainment’s sake?”
Swift only recently confirmed that she and Kelce were an item long before the public had any clue, in a rare moment of transparency, confirming their romantic relationship.
Swift has not addressed the opinion piece. She is expected to attend the Golden Globe Awards – where she is a nominee – Sunday night.