[nestorD]

Good point. The essay misses examples of what is an inescapable part of one's identity.

To answer other commenters: sometimes being queer can be as obvious to others as your skin color (because you are holding the hand of your partner, because you are at the beginning of a transition, etc...) and, using PG's criteria, is one of those things that other people will discuss without expertise (sometimes very negatively).

And, even if it is not obvious that one is queer, it is one of those topics where showing that you belong to that group (when you can afford it physically and mentally) is important. Both as a signal to other members (to show them that they are not alone) and as a way to normalize your identity (which, in the longer run and as a group effort, helps a lot to reduce bad reactions).

[zozbot234]

You're also conflating unchangeable characteristics (such as skin color, or sexual orientation) and some feeling of group belonging. We would certainly find it a bit weird if someone felt that they "belonged" in a valued group merely due to, e.g. having light-colored skin, and expressed a need to "show off" that specific fact about themselves to others. That's key to the "identity" distinction PG is making here.

[nestorD]

This feels like a false dichotomy: while you cannot change your sexual orientation, you can choose to make it more apparent and it has clear benefits for other lgbtq+ people around you (which, for me, gets it out of the selfish connotations of showing off: wherever you live, being openly gay still carries a non-zero physical risk, you don't do it just for the fun of it).