There is a danger in stating the "rules" for ones thread in absolutes. (And if obviously isnt an absolute category, its darned close.) Where on the scale from rugged he-man to whimpering sissy does a fairy become obviously identifiable? Chances are thats like beauty, in the eye of the beholder. Chances are, two proud homophobes might draw different obvious conclusions about whether some border-line cowboy/princess is actually a faggot (their term). Im sad to know a 70 percent gay guy thinks our legitimacy for dismissal and ridicule is all that obvious.
Beauty is culturally defined. Compare American and Japanese notions of beauty in the 18th century before the two cultures had much contact with each other.
But individuals will find another person more or less beautiful based on their own personal criteria. Beauty is NOT a stereotype. It's a cultural definition with rules to be applied, like a formula, with different
data in you get
different data out.
With a stereotype you put different data in, you get
the same data out. It's NOT in the eye of the beholder because it's more brittle than beauty, it will break where beauty bends.
[In facile terms, after enough episodes of "Ellen" the old stereotype of "Lesbian" breaks - it doesn't work anymore]
I don't think the OP means that many or most gays are "obviously" gay. So I wouldn't assume that he is disseminating prejudice. He's taken a known stereotype, saying that it's recognisable, or obvious, in some cases. Every stereotype that survives has some features based in fact. This is how prejudice works. People take some of these features and then apply them to a whole population. e.g. all Jews have big hooked noses and are good with money. (Notice how the features used are pretty superficial - noses - and generic - good with money?) The stereotype HAS to be superficial and or generic in order for it to survive for very long. It doesn't have to be universally true to be recognisable as a stereotype.
Instead the OP is asking us just to select those people who DO match the stereotype. Two examples from different generations: Liberace who always denied being gay, and Elton John who is proudly out. Both are quite different people but I would suggest they would fit into the general "obvious" gay stereotype.
Because stereotypes are so broad and inaccurate the fact that it might fit Paul Lind and Tony Perkins - yet the sexuality of both men might be more accurately described as somewhere on the range of bisexual or even heterosexual - doesn't mean that the stereotype is dead or unrecognisable. It's inevitably faulty but it's not broken - yet. [Both heterosexual culture and "Camp" culture contribute to keeping it on life support still].
So let's agree that the "obvious" stereotype does exist in the popular imagination. If we use it to find a person that matches, it's like saying "obvious" gays are obvious. Not like saying all gays are obvious or even many gays are obvious. Unlike sexuality (and beauty) the stereotype doesn't exist on a sliding scale, it's simple black and white [yes this applies to racial stereotyping too], you're a "fag" or you're a good ole' boy, you're a "nigger" or you're the plantation owner's wife. In the world of stereotypes there are no shades of grey. (
But we know in real life that this is not true). That's why sooner or later we discard stereotypes that are so broken that they NEVER work. That's when they become jokes. "Obvious" gay stereotyping still hasn't become a joke, just ask anyone who's been bullied at school lately.
I believe this idea, ["obvious"] was really a side issue for the OP. I think he was just asking us to separate out closet cases and self-hating gays and ex-gays from the sample so that we were not complicating the task of looking at homophobes. I don't think he was saying that these gays are not homophobes but they are coming from a different place. He possibly chose the wrong tool for the job when he pick up the "obvious" stereotype sledgehammer when perhaps what he needed was a scalpel.