It’s all bad. The tone (of voice), word choice, sentiment, and underlying message all combine to convey a message. It’s our job to sniff out, then call out any whiff of homophobia. Because in this year 2024, when legislation is increasingly terrifying for the marginalized, ANY amount of negativity toward LGBTQQIAA (and other ethnic, racial, social groups, but this needs to be focused discussion) individuals or groups is too much.
***Trigger Warning***
Look at the following Southern Poverty Law Center designated hate groups:
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/groups?f%5B0%5D=field_ideology%3A181
None of those groups are explicitly named God Hates F@gs! It’s difficult to tell at first glance that such groups might even be problematic…
Now, to the (non-exhaustive) list of more subtle and sometimes outright hateful words/phrases/sentiments:
traditional family values
it’s impolite to talk about
it’s inappropriate to publish essays/articles about the queercoding in Taylor’s media output
normal/abnormal
Gaylors are freaks
homosexuals are mentally ill
Kaylors are delusional
morality (clause)
questionable assertions
protecting children
homosexuals are predatory
…discussing the potential of a star’s queerness [my interjection of similarly “invasive” and “salacious” examples that media and individuals felt just fine covering ad nauseum: Kurt Cobain’s suicide, Brangelina, JLo’s marriages and sex life, Kim’s sex tape, messy divorce, and mentally ill ex-husband, Tina Turner’s DV, Britney’s parenting and sanity (and freedom), Amber Heard’s abuse accusations, fighting details, and in-court body language, Emma Stone’s baby’s father, and Taylor and Joe’s secret marriage, etc, etc, etc…] before a formal declaration of identity feels, to some, too salacious and gossip-fueled to be worthy of discussion.”
lover the sinner, hate the sin
homosexuals are going to hell
Adam and Steve
it’s a choice
it’s rude to speculate someone is queer
they’re flaunting it
they’re lewd
they’re oversexualized
“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,’” the person [with no self-awareness cited as “anonymous associate close to the situation”] added.
live and let live
as long as they don’t throw it in my face
Gaylors are invasive
homosexuals can do whatever they want in private
it’s the same as beastiality
Gaylors are gross
it’s unnatural
special rights
entitlement programs
gay agenda
making up fan-fiction [vs noticing details]
homosexuals recruit
homosexuals indoctrinate children
don’t say gay
gay lifestyle
blaming homosexual activity for natural disasters
gay plague
AIDS is a punishment
gay panic (defense)
OK groomer
gay men are promiscuous
gay men can’t be monogamous
LGBTP (made up acronym that includes pedophile)
[Taylor Swift] previously denied the insinuations [negative connotation]
bisexuals are just greedy
bisexuals are cheaters
bisexuals just haven’t picked a side
everyone is a little bit bi
all women fantasize about other women
they’re just friends/sisters
women kissing women doesn’t make you gay
It is highly unusual for a reputable [an insinuation that the article is NOT reputable] news organization like The Times to publish an article speculating on a person’s sexuality [vs. noticing queer flagging in Swift’s own body of work, eras, and performances].
you just haven’t had the right dick
sexual abuse caused her to be queer
gatekeeper
can I watch?
unicorn hunters
don’t accuse someone of being gay
protect women
biological women in sports
gendered bathrooms
it
dead-naming
Source:
https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/06/business/taylor-swift-new-york-times/index.html
Catty Remarks