By David Futrelle

Pity the poor Nazis, who are evidently having a difficult time dealing with the fact that Taylor Swift is never ever, ever getting back together with them, even though she was never ever, ever together with them in the first place.

Swift recently broke years of silence on political issues by endorsing two Democratic candidates, crushing the hearts of countless Nazis and alt-right fellow travelers who had convinced themselves that she was secretly one of them. There was a bit of an irony here: for several years, as I noted in a recent post, alt-right trolls spread assorted memes designed to dupe liberals into thinking that Taylor Swift was an undercover Nazi, but evidently the only people duped by the campaign were far-right saddoes who longed to have Ms. Swift as their Aryan Princess.

Apparently many on the far right are having a really hard time giving up their Swiftian fantasies — as evidenced, perhaps most clearly, by a succession of sour-grapsey posts on The Daily Stormer insisting that she was a bitch anyway. And fat. And possibly a trans woman, though the Stormer phrases it a little more rudely than that.

In a half-dozen posts published since Swift came out as a Dem, the Daily Stormer has denounced the singer as a “Fat Whore,” a “Fat Election-Meddler ,” “just another stupid whore,” “completely used up,” and someone who “isn’t a goddess because goddesses never go full-Dale Earnhardt.” (I’m not sure what that last one is even supposed to mean.)

In one post, Daily Stomer head boy Andrew Anglin — the author of five of the six attacks on Swift — offers a faux “eulogy” for Taylor Swift’s legs, which he claims are now way too chunky to be attractive. “Where these majestic pillars of heaven once were, there are now disgusting, jiggly Christmas hams,” he declares, evidently misremembering what exactly Christmas hams look like.

And that is at the root of this political pivot by Swift to the far-left. She is now completely used up. She did not use her beauty to secure a man and have children, and now must join the war of the wasted to turn America into the kind of hell ugly things are comfortable in. I will not be surprised if she cuts off all her hair and starts doing videos with Nicki Minaj. Actually, I will be surprised if she doesn’t do that. Rest in peace, Taylor Swift’s legs.

Yes, Taylor Swift’s legs are definitely very sour.

But even stranger than Anglin’s post on Swift’s legs is a post today from Daily Stormer contributor “Octavio Rivera,” who sets forth at great length a dubious case supposedly proving that Swift is no “Garden Variety Whore” but rather a “Secret T**nny Manwhore.”

“I don’t get a warm tingle in my belly when I read one of my guys unironically lamenting the loss of Taylor Swift,” Rivera writes — because, he insists,

Taylor Swift is probably a tr**ny. Mr. Swift now acting like a soyboy would make perfect sense, if he is a soyboy. … it’s … possible that “she” was born with a penis and a pair of testicles.

Even those once-super skinny, now not-quite-as-skinny legs of Swift’s — the ones Andrew Anglin was only yesterday eulogizing as “majestic pillars of heaven” — could well be man legs, baby! (At least according to Rivera’s transphobic logic.)

Rivera takes his readers on what he calls “a short crash-course in tr**ny identification.” (In what follows, I’m going to largely set aside the question of whether or not anything he says has any scientific validity; the point is that this is what he thinks is true.)

Rivera starts his course off by suggesting that the best way to tell if a woman is really a woman (at least in his transphobic mind) is if she looks like a child — that is, if she has “neotenous” features.

Women, Rivera contends,

have evolved to look more like children. This is called Neoteny. They are physically and mentally closer to babies than they are to adults. Women looking like children is useful for men because they know not to take those creatures seriously, and it is useful for women because looking and acting kinda like a toddler makes men want to protect and coddle them. … [N]eotenous features make women more attractive to men because we want young and fertile womb-machines, not used-up old hags.

Alas, Rivera warns his fellow extremely straight dudes,

Tr**nies work very hard to simulate neotenous features, and they have a decent array of tools at their disposal to achieve that illusion. From surgeries and hormone therapy to makeup and clothing. Just like fat chicks become masters of picture angles, tr**nies become masters of costumes and posing.

But, he adds, there are ways that extremely straight men can circumvent these tricks in order to tell who’s really a lady and who’s not. First, you gotta look at the forehead: real women have vertical foreheads, while those of real men slope backwards.

“When was the last time you saw Taylor Swift’s forehead?” he asks. “She’s always covering it.” (Bold in original.)

Rivera goes through a long list of physical features — from Adam’s apples to large hands s to narrow hips — that are generally markers of what he sees as real dudeness. He posts pictures of Swift in which she seems to display all of these dudely attributes — never mind that none of these things are actual proof of anything, gender-wise — and invites his readers to draw what he sees as the obvious conclusion.

You may wonder why is it so important for REAL EXTREMELY STRAIGHT DUDES to protect themselves from lusting after a woman who (in Rivera’s mind at least) is “really” a man.

Because, Rivera insists, if a dude accidentally lusts after a woman who isn’t “really” a woman, “you could get infected with the gay.”

Apparently Rivera is so eager to cure his fellow alt-rightists of their Taylor Swift crushes that he is willing to suggest that their former (and perhaps still existing) lust for her is GAY.

Those are some pretty sour grapes there, boys, that’s all I’m saying.

We Hunted the Mammoth relies entirely on readers like you for its survival. If you appreciate our work, please send a few bucks our way! Thanks!

Like Loading...