**1. Introduction**

In this work, we intend to carry out a reflection on the identity or identities, on their alleged malleability and/or fluidity, in addition to their ability to achieve the social transformations that they supposedly have as their objective.

In our Western societies, the demand for social and political recognition of identities, both individual and collective, has taken on great importance in recent years. In other words, there has been a shift from struggles over economic and material issues to those aimed at cultural and symbolic aspects and of what is related to the tangible, measurable, and verifiable: the objective, to the level of the merely subjective: what a person can feel from their internal experience, although it cannot be perceived by anyone else.

These postulates defend that each person has the right to self-define as it considers in a flexible and fluid way and that, in addition, it can do it without further

limitations than those that he herself self-imposes. In this way, external conditions are denied: social, political, economic and even biological. It reaches the extreme of converting mere subjective perceptions elements of belonging so anchored in the position occupied by individuals in the social structure such as: social class, sex and gender; Basic elements in the social classification structure in our societies. That is, it is intended that people can choose freely without more external interference, what social class or to what sex or gender they belong, without taking into account factors as objectives as the capital they possess, the sexual organs or the education they have received. None of this is relevant, the only thing that matters is the internal perception of the individual and his will. In this way concepts such as: class identity, sex identity or gender identity are used, when class consciousness should be discussed, and extrapolating this terminology: sex and gender awareness. In some cases, it seems that they are essential characteristics of individuals, that is, they are born with them and are entitled to express them freely. Paradoxically, because this contradicts the approach to the fluidity and flexibility of identities, since, if they are essential, the will of individuals would not play any role in their creation. Therefore, two completely opposite, contradictory and incompatible positions are defended.

This shift from material claims to cultural ones, with its corresponding emphasis on identity, has the effect of continuously creating borders between the different groups that compete with each other for that recognition instead of fighting together for common goals. Which has a double effect: on the one hand, it ends up dividing LGBT groups into a multitude of particular identities; and secondly, it benefits the strongest, which in this case would be gay men, to the detriment of the rest. This produces discrimination against other groups within the collective and even the invisibility of some. This is the case of the transsexual group when using the prefix trans as an umbrella term, including transsexual and transgender people, when they have very different conditions and totally opposite objectives, values, and approaches, as discussed below.

Likewise, we see how the queer movement has abandoned any analysis of power relations and, therefore, of patriarchy, focusing its attacks against feminism. As Gimeno points out, in queer theory, "universal concepts are replaced by an anomie of meanings that prevent the articulation of any political subject that can confront power or oppression" [1].

The emphasis on identities, therefore, is making the LGBT collective political from which it is possible to carry out a critical analysis of the system of oppression, articulate resistances and claim substantial changes that directly affect the power structures that build that system of oppression.
