At first, I thought I connected with Bawer in that I am a gay male who doesn't see himself as stereotypical, "queeny," "campy," etc. I hate being stereotyped as such, so I empathize with Bawer on that note. However, as the book went on, I found myself shocked at Bawer's rhetoric, and his logic---both are flawed, inconsistent, and baseless.
First and foremost, to criticize visible symbols of homosexuality in society is heartless, rude, and reveals his own discomfort with sexuality. Drag queens, Pride organizers, and "radical activists" dedicate their lives in order to make other people's lives better. They get out into the real world and show people what diversity is and how it is manifested. As far as this "silent majority" (gays who aren't "flamboyant," "radical," or "stereotypical") that Bawer speaks of, I offer one response: since when has silence done anything to improve human rights? Also, what does Bawer expect from this? That the "silent majority," who by implication of the word "silent" are nor vocal nor activists, will do better for gay rights? And how so? Logically, the answer ends up being the assimiliation of gays into a heteronormative world, where behavioral and linguistic traits commonly associated with heterosexuals are favored. It is these logical holes that reveals Bawer's book as an insecure and resentful, yet very self-indulgent, rant.
I would also like to connect this race. Here, Bawer has positioned himself as the Clarence Thomas of gays; Bawer simply seems to be complaining about stereotypes that are unfairly applied to him, and then trashes the people who helped him get where he is today. Bawer says that "radicals" need to get out of the public eye, similar to Booker T. Washington's doctrine of "accommodationism," which basically asked Blacks to stop "acting Black" and start acting "white" because it was normative. Thus, there is a definite logical implication that "visible" gay people need to shut up, stop "acting gay" and start to assimilate into the heteronormative environment that Bawer pretends to criticize but still participates in and perpetuates.
I want to believe that Bawer's heart is in the right place. His mind clearly is not. Every so often, you hear from people like this. But I do not believe this rhetoric is helpful, intelligent, or sustained throughout his book. Few references are given, and most of the writing is anecdotal. Although insightful, Bawer does no favors by committing the same stereotypes that his conservative targets commit; he gives little credit to the transcendent and diverse gay community, which does not need his "help" in the least. I do not believe his views in general to be relevant in a society where things are very much still separate and not equal.