Taylor Swift fans are up in arms after the New York Times published an op-ed speculating the singer may have “some affinity for queer identity.”Swift, who was named New York Times 2023 Person of the Year, is currently dating NFL player Travis Kelce, but Times editor Anna Marks questioned the romance as a “strategic brand partnership” or “performance art for entertainment’s sake.”.A person close to Swift reportedly told CNN “there seems to be no boundary some journalists won’t cross when writing about Swift, regardless of how invasive, untrue and inappropriate.”“Because of her massive success, in this moment there is a Taylor-shaped hole in people’s ethics,” the source said. “This article wouldn’t have been allowed to be written about any male artist whose sexuality has been questioned by fans.”.Marks suggested Swift covertly “signals to queer people” through her clothing and behaviour, by “dropping hairpins,” a term used in the gender identity vernacular that means to drop hints about one’s queer sexuality. “The covert ways someone can signal queer identity to those in the know while leaving others comfortable in their ignorance,” Marks described. “Those dropped hairpins began to appear in Swift’s artistry long before queer identity was undeniably marketable to mainstream America.”“They suggest to queer people that she is one of us,” Marks wrote. “There are some queer people who would say that through this signalling, she has already come out, at least to us.” Marks emphasized Swift’s celebrity and compared the experience of a celebrity such as her compared to a normal person “coming out” is the difference between a “sledgehammer” and “toy mallet.” “It’s reasonable for celebrities to be reticent,” Marks wrote, “by coming out, they potentially invite death threats, a dogged tabloid press, the excavation of their past lives, a torrent of public criticism and the implosion of their careers.” Swift’s fans, as well as the general public on social media, didn’t take well to Mark’s accusations, with some calling for a boycott of the Times and others denouncing the article as "despicable."