Comment from Reddit:Chapter 3 seems to suggest that, almost without exception, the mannerisms of gays are markedly feminine. And that most will self-identify, at least in some meaningful way, as a woman: 'ew no, that'd make me a lesbian'. Of course my experiences are only anecdotal in comparison, but I've rarely come across this. I know a great many gay guys who have no outwardly effeminate mannerisms, or at least not beyond a similar amount of mannerisms in straight men. I also don't know a single gay guy who identifies as more of a woman than a man, other than as a joke - they know they're gay men. As in they jokingly copy a feminine social cue - 'hey girlfriend', but if you asked them whether they'd be put in the male or female locker room, then they'd say male. Anything more than that I think is conflating transgendered with homosexuality.
This ties in with the comments in Chapter 3 of the sometimes hypocritical hatred of effeminacy by effeminate gays. But from what I understand and will continue to understand, the desire for same-sex relations may not be completely socially constructed, but effeminacy is. As an extreme example, a kid raised by wolves will not have a lisp and an effeminate walk (not that there's much wrong with those things), but they might still have same-sex tendencies.
EDIT: Further need to point out, the example of 'a Canadian show called "1 girl 5 gays"' is used. I don't know of this show, but would it be better to deduce from this that it is evidence of the media portrayal of gays, not necessarily gays themselves. In modern media, the feminine gay guy is often used as comedy relief - it's a niche that works, but it isn't necessarily reflective. I understand the book is discussing both gays themselves as well as their portrayal, but using modern media as an example of the substantive nature of homosexuals seems like it is a completely different discussion altogether. As a corollary example, I would use the pink/blue masculine/feminine example. It used to be that blue was the colour for girls, and pink (as a subset of red) was male. Society switched that, and it is now so prevalent in the public psyche that it would be difficult to switch back. But that doesn't mean that little girls have an inherent desire for pink, and little boys have an inherent desire for blue. They don't care, until society tells them they should. Same with how gays choose to act and are represented.
Anyway, interesting read, I will continue (had to make these comments while they were fresh in my mind.)
Context for "Ew, I'd feel like a lesbian." from Grero:
An effeminate ex-boyfriend of mine could flirt with women better than any other man I've seen. So I asked him why he didn't want to have sex with women. The response betrayed a feminine self-identity: "Ew, I'd feel like a lesbian." This explains the gay obsession with divas like Britney Spears, Cher, Madonna, and the like. Gay men identify with struggling women who overcome the odds because they often see themselves in a similar light. They often even use feminine pronouns amongst each other, and as much the same happened in the molly houses in the 1700's and during Ulrichs's time in 1864: "When Urnings get together, they mostly give themselves feminine nicknames; I suppose this is because they feel like women, even if only subconsciously: for example, 'Laura,' 'Georgina,' (instead of George), 'Mathilde,' 'Madonna,' 'Queen of the Night.' They also call each other 'sister,' for example, 'Sister dear.'"
