I don’t particularly care for Taylor Swift. I don’t mean this in an edgy, “ugh, Swifties are so annoying and lame,” way. She has some catchy songs. She’s a very skilled businesswoman. She remains apolitical enough, quiet enough, behaved enough, white enough and bland enough to appeal to a very wide demographic. She’s safe. She’s a good singer. She’s pretty, but in a Girl Next Door way, so that she can be mistaken for normal. She’s cute but not too sexy, so conservative parents allow their children to listen to her. She’s a bit awkward, which resonates with most people, as rarely does someone socialise smoothly. She’s alright. She just doesn’t interest me. But is Taylor Swift a lesbian? Gaylors think she is, despite Swift never admitting to same-sex attraction and recently becoming engaged to Travis Kelce. I don’t.
Riffing on Betty Who “holding space” for lesbian musician Reneé Rapp to fall in love with a man, Twitter/X user @suisrenaissance posted about the engagement news: “Sexuality is fluid and I’m holding space for her if in 10 years she happens to fall in love with a woman. And that’s valid because that’s how sexuality works right guys.”
Assuming lesbianism
I’ve been in lesbian spaces since 2007. Unsurprisingly, it’s always been common for women to ask established, comfortable lesbians if they could be a lesbian themselves, with a list of evidence. It was commonplace for us to shoehorn these women into lesbianism; it was common to chalk up every bit of drive towards men as “seeking male validation” or “comphet” or whatever. I regret this. I blame the Lesbian Masterdoc, which a bisexual woman wrote. I also blame Political Lesbianism–the idea that you can choose lesbianism for feminist reasons–which heavily influenced the concept of “compulsory heterosexuality,” the root of the Masterdoc. Yes, heteronormativity pushes lesbians towards undesired sex and relationships with men. But Adrienne Rich’s popularisation of “comphet” goes a step further and says that female-to-male attraction itself is not natural or intrinsic for any woman; therefore, it can be unlearned or de-programmed. Once achieved, or even just on that “journey,” you can “become a lesbian.” BARF.
Many young bisexual women, particularly feminist ones, began identifying as lesbians circa 2010, some even coming out to their parents and community. It was encouraged by real lesbians, who felt the effects of heteronormativity and gave them the validation they needed because the bi women conveniently left out evidence for their male attraction, while asking for advice on their potentially lesbian sexual orientation. That is, until after identifying as lesbians, they “randomly” found the love of their life, who just-so-happened to be a man. They wanted to be lesbians until they couldn’t hide that they weren’t anymore. Their draw to men was real, not comphet.
Despite lesbianism not being sunshine and rainbows day-to-day, people often want a definitive answer that “bisexual” doesn’t seem to give them. If the preference for the same sex is strong enough, young bisexual women will sometimes opt for “lesbian.” This is homophobic because it’s done with the assumption that male attraction is part of lesbianism, it’s just minimal. We need to normalise going labelless until you’re sure of your sexual orientation. There is nothing wrong with being unsure. If there is evidence of attraction to both men and women, say bisexual.
Easter eggs or delusion?
Back to Taylor Swift. Why is the above relevant? Gaylors, if right about Swift’s same sex attraction, assume Swift is a lesbian, despite so much evidence pointing towards her attraction to men. Lesbianism is not an umbrella term for all women who love women. I don’t deny that Taylor Swift might have left “easter eggs” to imply that she is same-sex attracted. Who knows? If that’s true, it likely makes her bi, not “Gay.”
I think it is viable that Swift would hide attraction to women: she loves her status, the money, and the power, and she would deeply upset plenty of her conservative demographic by being open about it. It could literally put her in danger if gun-wielding fathers blame Taylor Swift for attempting to “corrupt” their Swiftie daughters into being lesbians. Taylor appeals to the masses because, like I said earlier, she remains apolitical and private.
Rose, 37, based in Canada, says: “I think Taylor Swift is probably straight but the one thing I will give to the Gaylors is it really did look like she was kissing (in a romantic and not friendly way) Karlie Kloss in that video someone took of them at a concert back in 2014.
“That said – and this isn’t specifically about Taylor Swift – I think modern Hollywood is a lot closer to Old Hollywood than people think, in that I think a lot of major celebrities are closeted to the point of having fake contract relationships, etc. and will never come out. I’ve heard it said that even if you personally want to come out and are out to your friends and family, there’s a whole machine of people around you who will try to convince you that your career will be over if you do that because international audiences won’t see your films, no one will cast you in a straight romantic role ever again, etc.
“So the idea that someone as big as Taylor Swift could be just as closeted as like Greta Garbo was back in the day is not that far-fetched to me personally.”
Taylor Swift recently became engaged to a whole man. While lavender marriages–gay men and lesbians marrying to conceal their sexual orientation–existed throughout history, Swift, in her position, would not need a lavender marriage to hide her lesbianism today. The expectation of getting married does not exist in the U.S. in the same way it did in the past, so she wouldn’t need to reassure her conservative fans that she’s straight by getting married. Suppose she were a lesbian using heterosexual marriage to hide her lesbianism from everyone: it would have happened when she was far younger. Why wait, if you’re not basing the choice on desire?
Kaela, 21, wrote: “I got called homophobic yesterday for saying her music wasn’t part of queer history.”
“I’m a huge fan of hers and could probably talk about this specific topic for like an hour, but like generally the biggest thing I have to say to Gaylors is “be so fucking for real.”
“I really think that debating *anyone’s* sexuality, not just Taylor’s, is super invasive any which way it goes, but it’s nuts to me that anyone would call any of her music a part of our history. She has not explicitly come out as anything but she has said that she doesn’t like it when the media sensationalized and sexualized her female friendships (like her and Karlie Kloss), and that’s what makes it not a part of queer history. It’s not erasure or denial to say this, “Gaylors” literally are the definition of seeing what you want to see in someone.
“Taylor is also one of my celeb crushes, but it’s not like I’m going around saying that she betrayed me, like some people legitimately are. Maybe not because they think she’s cheating on them, but because, “OMG, how dare she get engaged to a MAN and then announce it on Women’s Equality Day!!!””
Taylor Swift isn’t some sheltered lesbian forcing herself into marriage with a man while young enough and unsure enough and disempowered enough for it to make sense. At this point, it’s safe to say she is not a lesbian.
*Maury Povich voice*: “In the case of Taylor Swift being a lesbian, Gaylors, she is NOT a lesbian.”
*Gaylors “boo”; the rest of us don’t care*
Bisexual women often conceal their same-sex desire while in relationships with men for heteronormative power. Lesbians are usually forced out because we can’t have fulfilling relationships with men like other women can. Swift has more than enough incentives to lean into “being straight,” IF she’s even attracted to women. Sure. But it’s 2025, and she’s alive, so dissecting her sexual orientation isn’t really the same as looking at photographs of women throughout history–in contexts too homophobic for them to be open about their same-sex desire–and considering they might not be straight.
Even if Taylor Swift is bisexual, “easter eggs” aren’t good enough. I’ve got no empathy for it, if true. The “easter eggs” are not clear enough to be considered any kind of proper representation of same-sex desire. Lesbian and bisexual women who fixate on Swift’s sexual orientation and get excited about supposed hints she’s not straight are essentially settling for crumbs. I empathise with that. With Gaylors, as insane as they are, who Swift is potentially baiting. If they’re right, Taylor Swift is not doing anything revolutionary for our community. That would take courage, including loss of money, status and reputation in the quest for honesty.
Leave a Reply