New York, New York - A New York Times opinion article has openly speculated about the sexuality of pop star Taylor Swift. Yet the prestigious outlet is now receiving backlash from critics in Taylor's camp and Swiftes alike.

The article in question, Look What We Made Taylor Swift Do, was penned by editor Anna Marks and insinuates the 34-year-old star may be part of the LGBTQ+ community and has not come out.

Yet some Swifties and an anonymous source close to Taylor have hit back.

"There seems to be no boundary some journalists won’t cross when writing about Taylor, regardless of how invasive, untrue, and inappropriate it is," an insider "close to the situation" told CNN on Saturday.

Kim Kardashian Who is Kim Kardashian's new mystery boo? Insiders spill the tea!

"This article wouldn’t have been allowed to be written about Shawn Mendes or any male artist whose sexuality has been questioned by fans."

The New York Times piece cites various perceived clues within Taylor's lyrics and visuals which could be veiled LGBTQ references and perhaps "signal queerness." Marks suggested Taylor could be closeted and secretly identify with the queer community, but that for celebrities to come out and "to stop lying — by omission or otherwise — is to risk everything."

Taylor Swift has repeatedly declared her concerts a "safe space" for queer people.

"I didn’t realize until recently that I could advocate for a community that I’m not a part of," she told Vogue in 2019.

To the ire of many Swifties, Marks also sewed a seed of doubt into Taylor's current romance with NFL star Travis Kelce.

Kim Kardashian Has Kim Kardashian secretly started dating a new guy?

"Whatever you make of Ms. Swift’s extracurricular activities involving a certain football star (romance for the ages? strategic brand partnership? performance art for entertainment’s sake?), the public’s obsession with the relationship has been attention-grabbing, if not lucrative, for all parties, while reinforcing a story that America has long loved to tell about Ms. Swift, and by extension, itself."

Marks preemptively defended against critics of her article, writing, "I know that discussing the potential of a star’s queerness before a formal declaration of identity feels, to some, too salacious and gossip-fueled to be worthy of discussion.

"But the stories that dominate our collective imagination shape what our culture permits artists and their audiences to say and be."