My highly cynical answer:

First, we have to note this is a recent development in human culture. In the past, stratification and differentiation in gender roles were most prominent among the elite and least noticeable among the poor e.g. look at Heian Japan, ancient Rome, Byzantine Empire, New Kingdom of Egypt, and so on. Money and leisure time constituted strong incentives to push the upper class towards such a dichotomy: it takes considerable energy and time to learn the nuances of a gender role, especially when said role is constantly in flux depending on the political and cultural milieu of the day. For the impoverished lower class, they are too busy with prosaic duties to maintain attention on the vagaries of a culture far removed from them. That's why in small rural villages, you can find general trends of gender distinction that last thousands of years unchanged.

The main reasons are the elite's primal need to discriminate and the more uniform distribution + access to capital in post-WWII society. Every minor, unpleasant aspect you mention about the poor - ostentatious plastic surgery, insistence on enforcing gender rules, the careful analysis of behavior to distinguish ordinary people from homosexuals - constituted the previous verbal and visual language the rich used to signal their status to each other. Once upon a time only the rich could afford specialized surgery as a matter of leisure; the prejudices and perceptions of country bumpkins were derived from intellectual theories on homosexuality decades in the past (eugenics and sterilization of gays was a popular topic among them too); there are reams of evidence from the Victorian era, 10th century Japan, the courts of Versailles, blah blah blah denoting the exact specifics and ritualistic behaviors that 'proper' men and women were required to observe in the courts. This also applies to the history of makeup (a fascinating subject in itself), skin tone, clothing, the advent of PC language in the professional sphere, and a hundred different things. All these areas, developed and refined by the privileged, gradually trickled down and were absorbed via osmosis.

But now that ordinary people have the money and time to imitate their betters, it no longer makes the upper class special from an ontological perspective. Wealth and status were always justified by the belief rich people had special access to the true nature of the world, an understanding that preclude any disturbance in the social order (1). Instead, they have to adapt new beliefs and behaviors to distinguish themselves from the crass lowlifes and dollar-store replicas. Most of these new philosophies and rules of conduct were nurtured in urban, academic grounds or among revolutionary groups that were foreign to the average American. Tom Wolfe wrote extensively about this in Radical Chic.

Clear displays of gender, still prominent within the lower and middle classes, rank among the first things that must go if one wants to be perceived as enlightened.

(1) If you want proof, I can partially cite the ancient texts from memory where this motif is repeated. It is also a repeating cycle whenever the merchant class accrues enough power to copy the material success of the upper class, embodied by "old money" versus "new money" tensions.

i know our social climate now is to "hate the rich", but why do their personalities and genders seem more decent, human and why do the wealthy heterosexual males just seem more..."gay" or decent or kind?

They are inundated with soft social training from a young age on how to navigate public life. Parents, private school, university, social circles...it takes decades to cultivate this type of demeanor as an automatic reflex. The ones eager for acceptance and ambitious for status adapt the new standards (in this case, based on liberal-centric and progressive philosophy) to progress in the relevant domains. Of course, this largely teaches them how to avoid coming off as bad people instead of installing a sense of morality.

Do wealthy people hide it better? Is it hiding inside of them or are they completely transformed? Why are they exempt from this?

Judging from their terrible behavior behind closed doors - I can only speak from a perspective within Hollywood - they are better at hiding it and far worse when exploiting it.

The elite have an unshakeable tendency to arrogate moral supremacy as their birthright. They co-opt movements to render them impotent, adopt the language of minority groups for probity's sake, and an opportunistic nose for detecting which way the wind is shifting. For me, it's hard to view most of their external performances as little more than facade. I'm too familiar with how they wield their power to give wealthy people the benefit of the doubt.