Opinion | Stop ‘queering’ real people

It’s me, hi. I’m the Swiftgron hater, it’s me. 

If you’ve never heard of Swiftgron, honestly, count yourself lucky — it’s a whole ride. Swiftgron is the ship name for Taylor Swift and Dianna Agron. The combination might seem weird, since the two aren’t known for their connection nowadays, but about 10 years ago they were friends and regularly appeared on each others’ social media. “Swiftgron” is what happened when avid fans saw all the signs and interpreted something different — that Swift and Agron were in a romantic relationship. 

Song lyrics, social media photos and comments in interviews — all became “evidence” to Swiftgron supporters. THIS song is about when they got together. THIS Twitter interaction was her flirting. THIS response in an interview means she’s nervous about denying their relationship. And, my favorite, THIS tweet tells the story of how Agron tricked Swift into watching a lesbian sex scene. Fans rewrote the narrative to support the idea that Swift and Agron were together, and that Swift is actually gay — and then they posted about it online to spread their theories. 

This fan behavior is a good example of “queering.” Queering is reframing the narrative to support a queer story by envisioning queerness in a place that isn’t necessarily queer. It’s interpreting something to see your own identity in it. Imagining your favorite characters as queer is a staple of queer history. Much of what’s considered queer film, in fact, is mostly composed of films that aren’t explicitly queer — rather, films became queer just because of queer interpretation. 

Nowadays, queer film is defined much differently since we see explicitly queer characters on screen, but that wasn’t always the case. Due to the Hays code and conservative ideas, queer identities weren’t allowed to explicitly be shown in film. In response, queer audiences reframed narratives in films to see their own queer identities in them — and this is how queer film existed before queerness was generally more tolerated.

Take, for example, the movie “Thelma and Louise.” While all the relationships in this movie are heterosexual, a viewer could watch this movie and notice the developing relationship between two women. The viewer could choose to comprehend the film based on the idea that the two women have something akin to a romantic relationship. Or, the film “Rocky” — Rocky’s transition to becoming jacked up, and by the movie’s definition, more masculine, could be relatable to a trans man, and they could see the film as a story that mirrors their own. Choosing to see queerness in these places is queering. 

Celebrity culture can also be subjected to the act of queering, since celebrity culture relies on narratives. Social media, interviews, headlines — all create narratives about a celebrity that make a character. Headlines and topics of interviews are all carefully crafted by a PR group hired by the celebrity to tell the world what to believe about them. Thus — all this information is open to interpretation, and can be interpreted in a queer way, just like a movie. But unlike queering a movie, queering a real person has real-life consequences.

Take “Larry Stylinson,” for example. You’d be hard-pressed to find many people who have never heard of this ship name for former One Direction singers Harry Styles and Louis Tomlinson. Proponents of this ship, known as “Larries,” did similarly what Swiftgron supporters did — take morsels of interactions between the two celebrities and throw them all together under the banner of “proof” of a romantic relationship. “Where do you want to sit?” “Next to you.” See? They wanted to sit next to each other. Proof they’re in love. 

Unlike Swiftgron, though, Larry broke much further into the mainstream, spiraling into smutty fanfiction, that infamous Euphoria scene and conspiracy theories about how the two tried to bury their “romantic relationship.” And because this fantasy became so well known, it began to affect Styles’ and Tomlinson’s real-life reputations — and they weren’t really happy about it. Tomlinson especially had complaints about that Euphoria animated sex scene, saying, “No, I’m not going to lie, I was pissed off. It annoyed me that a big company would get behind it.” 

While I never want to criticize a queer person for seeking representation, not all of these modern-day examples are necessarily about finding a queer identity in other people. Deciding that two pop singers from One Direction are together was not really an act of desperation and trauma — it was more about the allure of a secret relationship, or perhaps the spectacle of a fetish — honestly, I’m not sure. 

Queering characters is fine. Characters are not real people — their lives will not be affected by online speculation. But celebrities’ lives will. Styles and Tomlinson saw what people were saying and it affected how they worked together, how they treated each other in public, how they spoke about each other in public. Every little interaction became a shred of evidence for Larries to grasp. Queering did not validate peoples’ existence here, it just caused problems. 

Also, if you genuinely believe that a celebrity is queer, it should really go without saying that you should not do anything to out them. Kit Connor’s situation last year proved that speculation about a celebrity’s sexuality is never helpful, and often quickly leads to bullying and accusations of “queerbaiting.” No one should ever be forced to come out to avoid a barrage of insults on Twitter. No one should ever be forced to come out, period. If you are spreading narratives about a celebrity being queer because you think it will lead to them eventually coming out — and proving you correct — don’t do that. You’re not helping queerness exist in the world. 

We’re incredibly lucky to be living in a time when queerness is openly shown in the world. We can turn on the TV and see a lesbian couple or witness transgender people talking about their trans experiences on social media. A few measly decades ago, this wasn’t a possibility — you had to put in work to reimagine films as queer in order to see your experiences reflected anywhere. But nowadays, we don’t have to do that. So to force queer identities onto celebrities just to make ourselves feel better, or even just for entertainment, isn’t fair to them. 

Queerness will exist where it belongs. Let’s not force it onto non-consenting people.

Anna Ehlers is the layout editor. Reach her at ane45@pitt.edu

Editor’s Note: This article has been updated to clarify the definition of “queering.”