Currently Watching The Swiftologist Reaction To The "Look What We Made Taylor Swift Do" Article And I

What’s really shitty about this new article is that anyone remotely connected to Taylor can claim they’re her associate. Travis and his team can be the source for the article, and they know that the general public will take it as the gospel truth and assume an associate means Taylor’s team itself. But it doesn’t.

The problem is that if anyone can be an associate, it’s not technically a lie.

One of Taylor’s associates has a problem with the article, and that can’t be disproven. And that associate likely wants to make it look like Taylor is the one with the problem—to keep her looking straight. For their own agenda.

I can think of a couple parties that could be responsible, but my eye is mainly on Travis.

Not socialist in a “I won’t have to work” type of way but socialist in a “I’ll still be working but I won’t be worried I won’t make the rent” type of way. In a “billions won’t be hoarded by one person” type of way. In a “janitors, fast-food workers, child care workers, preschool teachers, hotel clerks, personal care and home health aides, and grocery store cashiers, will live comfortably” type of way. In a “the sick and elderly will be cared for” type of way. In a “no child should work” type of way.

I just read a re-post of one of my post from a non-gaylor, and I would like to say it was a really good, respectful answer that explained their point of view perfectly and, by any means, this post is an attemp to start beef or anything.

Being said that, one of the points that really standed out to me was how some fans would "force a queer identity on her" (not quoting them, just summarizing) and how twisting lyrics to hold a narrative or using certain interpretation of a song, was not healthy, in reference to the connection I made to the album midnights and Taylors queerness.

Now, I would like to ask, isnt twisting a lyric to fit a narrative how people started saying that Taylor was the "argumentative antithetical dream girl" she refers to in hits different, when is crearly (and is a question of grammar and basic language comprension) refering to the muse of the song?

Bet I could still melt your world, argumentative antithetical dream girl. Are you kidding me?? How could you posible say this makes sense if she was refering to herself???

Then, the paternity test constantly done by swifties to look for the muse of a song is nothing more than a certain interpretation of the lyric to fit the narrative. So that is not a thing exclusive to gaylors, almost every swiftie does it.

Now, that is what I like to call a double standard. I am not shaming the original autor of the post that have inspired this text, but pointing out a more societal problem. Very often, speculation and shipping and reading into things, if done in a hetero way is okay but do not dare to do it in a way that relates to queerness.

About the "forcing a queer identity on her", there is a thing, done through history called flagging. Safo was doing it in ancient Grecee, so did Oscar Wilde and more recently Elton John or James Dean. There are signals of the queer community to signal discretely to other lgbtq+ that they are one of them.

Taylor is not subtle about her flagging. She went out in a bi pride colored jacket to sing "and you can want who you want, boys and boys and girls and girls". She did sing about wearing someone like a necklace. She did spray paint her paint the bi colors to her gay pride music video. Use the lyric hair pin drop more than once. She puts lesbian flag colors as the main lighting in her world wide tour. And much much more. Is obvious, really out there for the people who want to see it to see.

Once you see that, you have no option but to hope she is queer; because if she was not, she would only be a straight girl that harmed the queer comunity by taking all the simbolisim that lgbtq+ people have built througt the ages and making it hetero to the mainstream, erasing the very little history the comunity has managed to create in the opressed world that it had have to endure.

So, even if I think that the answer to my previous post was really well written and respectful, I do not think it is a really nuance take.

PD: To the person behind the original blog that posted the answer, if you have read this and recognised yourself on it, just know this is not a personal attack and I apologize before hand if that felt like that to you.

Sooo, I just read a post saying that gaylors are disgusting because they want to force Taylor out of the closet?? And that NYT should not have posted that article???

Let me get something clear, if you are closeted, you try and hide your queernes as much as you can. You dont go around singing about your agumentative, antithetical dream girl and wearing someone like a necklace. You dont talk about hairpin drops. You dont dress yourself in the bi pride flag colors and sing about wanting boys and girls. Is not something you do if you are closeted.

Forcing someone out of the closet is disgunting, thats for sure, the thing were this person is wrong is that we are not trying to force Taylor out of the closet. Forcing her would be something she does not agree on but since she has been putting all the queercoding and queer slang in her music (out there to listen and analize by everyone) and decide to do some things queer people use to identify each other and send signals in public, aware she is being watched by the whole world, I would argue that the talking about her probably being queer is consented by her.

Also, saying she is in a closet would mean she is secretive about it and trying to pass as straight, which I think I gave you enough examples as to why she is not secretive about it. Is out there to see. And because is out there to see, it is okay to talk about it. She put it out there. The NYT only talked about queercoding in her music, which is completely fine to talk to. She wrote that music and she released it. She filmed that videos. Chose that words. She is in control and she decided to leave hairpin drops as often as she could. The NYT was not outing her or anything, it was just doing a reading of a piece of art using certain simbology, that happens to be the queer one. And if we think about how the art and the artist are connected, is fair enough to wonder if she could be attracted to woman. She hints at it in her music!

Sooo... i been trying to tag people in the post, but turns put I dont know how to do that so... A big hug to everyone (mutual or not). Thank you for making tumblr such a safe and fun space. I hope you have a nice day.

This is the Tumblr hug 🫂🤍 Please pass it on to 5 mutuals to brighten someone’s day!

@yourlocalbreadenthusiast @edendahsnek @m3ll0m0chi @bbsundae @cyberixaa @kittydragondraws @jinxedtext

And lastly, @sk3tchyy42 , youuuuuu

(I probably did miss some mutuals, MUTUALS OR NOT COME HERE FOR A HUG)

Tell me why the actual fuck I was crying because the girl I like went back to her shitty boyfriend and then all of a sudden my head just go: "at least you are not crying for a man" ???like??? Wtf is wrong with me???

I am indeed a coward, but this blog is a safe space for asexuals (everyone on that spectrum) and hate coments towards them (or anyone for that matter) will not be tolerated.

Please, spread kindness

Reblog if you support asexuals and aren’t a COWARD

RB if your blog is a safe, accepting space for asexuals!

Reblog if you think a woman can be complete without children

Y’ALL HAVE TIME TO REBLOG THIS. IT TAKES LESS THAN FIVE SECONDS.