Explaining "Gaylor" and the Taylor Swift-shaped "hole in people's ethics"

Once, if you knew the term “Gaylor” it was a sign that you spent way too much time online. Nowadays, the conspiracy that Taylor Swift is secretly gay has gone mainstream. The niche but persistent fan theory has breached containment before, but a recent New York Times op-ed has cemented the discourse in the paper of record. The speculative piece on Swift’s possible closeted queerness, titled “Look What We Made Taylor Swift Do,” has caused readers, fans, and even apparently Swift’s team to confront the question: Why are people so comfortable theorizing about a celebrity’s sexuality?

To understand the context of this specific conversation, you have to understand that it’s been going on for a long, long time. Though Swift is ostensibly an icon of American heterosexuality, a certain subset of fans have for years detected “clues” about a possible queer identity. Those clues were derived from both her public life and relationships with women, as well as analyzing her lyrics through a particular lens. The list of so-called evidence dates back as far as pre-fame Myspace posts through the Lover era, which was punctuated by rainbow imagery (“Me!”) and aligning herself, at least as an ally, with the LGBTQ+ community (“You Need To Calm Down”).

Swift has addressed this speculation on occasion over the years, most notably when a grainy video embracing former friend Karlie Kloss went viral: “As my 25th birthday present from the media, I’d like for you to stop accusing all my friends of dating me. #thirsty” she tweeted in 2014. (She returned to this point in the 1989 (Taylor’s Version) introduction in 2023.) “I didn’t realize until recently that I could advocate for a community that I’m not a part of,” she said in the wake of releasing “You Need To Calm Down.” Now, following the Times op-ed, an “associate” of Swift’s tells CNN, “Because of her massive success, in this moment there is a Taylor-shaped hole in people’s ethics … 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.’”

These statements would appear fairly definitive, but for the community of “Gaylor” truthers, there is just enough ambiguity to hold on to. Unless Swift herself explicitly says, “I’m straight, please stop,” there’s a bit of wiggle room. (“Your coward ass is always hiding behind press releases. … You’re still gay and that’s FINAL,” one viral response to the CNN quote reads.) Even if Swift did come out on stage and declare herself heterosexual, it might not be enough to weed out the conspiracy entirely, as these fans have long thought she’s stayed closeted because of pervasive homophobia. The Times piece cites the example of queer country singer Chely Wright, who has discussed the oppressively anti-LGBTQ+ atmosphere of the music industry both she and Swift came up in in the early 2000s. (Wright, for the record, called the NYT piece “triggering” and “upsetting.”) While the culture has gotten more accepting since then, homophobia nevertheless still exists, and coming out would have some measure of impact on any musician’s career.

“Gaylor” theories are just one of many examples of invasive Taylor Swift coverage

Part of the reason this conspiracy has been so persistent is that Swift herself has trained her fans to look for clues as to the true meanings behind her songs. From almost the very beginning of her career, she’s planted “Easter eggs” that fans decode and ascribe importance to. This kind of obsessive detective work is employed as much, if not more, to her documented heterosexual relationships as her theorized homosexual ones. (The secret message “Hyiannis Port,” misspelled in the liner notes for 2012’s Red, sprouted the theory that the romantic muse of “Everything Has Changed” was Swift’s former bestie Dianna Agron, for instance.) This genius public relations move of encouraging listeners to dig deeper into the canon and make connections has cultivated one of the most attentive and devoted fan bases in human history. But it also lends itself to continuous speculation about her personal life that is no doubt invasive and overbearing.

This brings us back to the ethical question of publicly speculating about a celebrity’s sexuality in the manner of the Times op-ed. The CNN “associate” (in entertainment journalism, anonymous sources frequently, but not always, come directly from the celebrity’s team) blames the piece on Swift’s camp’s favorite scapegoat, misogyny. “This article wouldn’t have been allowed to be written about Shawn Mendes or any male artist whose sexuality has been questioned by fans,” the associate claims. Yet misogyny doesn’t seem to be the ultimate culprit, as male celebrities have frequently been the center of gay conspiracies—Mendes is name-dropped here specifically because he’s been so dogged by rumors of his sexuality that he’s had to address it on multiple occasions. For Taylor Swift, it seems less a case of being a female artist than being the most famous artist in the world, one that any outlet (including this one!) would pay to spill thousands of words, any words, about her professional life, her personal life, or just her mere presence at an awards show.

While queer readings of art and even public figures have historically existed, it’s been a relatively niche practice that existed in small academic circles or relatively private corners of Tumblr. With Swift, even a niche segment of fandom and discourse becomes a powerful and unwieldy force to be reckoned with. To say that there is a Taylor-shaped hole in people’s ethics may be accurate, as her level of fame is an essentially unprecedented phenomenon that the public is still figuring out how to handle. But just because she’s experiencing an unbelievable peak of fame should not mean there exists carte blanche to abandon journalistic ethics in discussing her.

Unfortunately for Swift, “Gaylor” theories in the Times are just one of many examples of how impossible it is to put the genie back in the bottle. She is impossibly famous, with a fan base more personally invested in her life and success than any other that currently (or perhaps ever) exists. The speculation around her romantic life is far from limited to gay conspiracies, after all; tabloids were inventing fanfiction about her prospective marriage to Joe Alwyn, and major media outlets are covering not just her relationship with Travis Kelce but also the intense fan reaction to it. All of this coverage could be described as invasive. It’s an overwhelming signifier of her unique celebrity, and in some cases, it’s spun past the point of her control. All Swift can do is try to redirect the narrative, one she has never asked to be a part of, since the start of her career. The rest now belongs to the public’s imagination—and the op-ed section of the Times.