**6. Sexual and gender identities. Is there an LGBT community?**

We usually talk about the LGBT community as if it were unitary and compact; as if all the groups that make up sexual and gender diversity had the same problems and interests. However, the truth is that it is not. Within this community there is great diversity and the interests of each of them not only do not coincide on many occasions, but also become incompatible with each other. Gays and lesbians start from very different positions in the social structure because, regardless of their sexual condition, they are still men and women in a patriarchal society. Bisexual people are almost completely invisible within the group, on many occasions, even discriminated against when it is considered that they are not capable of fully accepting their homosexuality. The "T" of the acronym LGBT, before referring to transsexual people, now also includes transgender people, two groups that have completely opposite approaches and problems.

In relation to trans laws that are being approved throughout the world, there is no agreement within the LGBT collective. In 2019, the "LGB Alliance" was created in London and, subsequently, other similar associations such as Canada, Iceland, Ireland, Australia and Spain have been created. These associations are the product of the split of LGBT+ groups of these different countries. They declare that they have separated from their organizations of origin due to the discrepancies they have with them and the lack of opportunity to have in them to expose and defend their views. That is, they accuse LGBT+ associations of creating a iron censorship that prevents debating everything that does not coincide with dominant political approaches, especially in relation to trans issues. The new groups propose that the defenders of the Trans Movement are protecting positions that go against the rights of lesbians, gays and bisexuals. From their point of view, the objective of these policies that deny the material reality of sex, is to end homosexuality in all their forms, so they consider

#### *Perspective Chapter: Considerations about Sexual and Gender Identities and Their Influence… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.108686*

them homophobic and, especially, lesbophobes and misogynks. They accuse Queer theory of complying with the sexist prejudices of society, not admitting that there are women and men who do not adapt to these stereotypes. Likewise, they claim that, homosexual people are attracted to other people of the same sex, not of their same gender, so, accuse of transphobia to those who do not want to maintain relationships with people of the other sex, as the theory does queer, it's homophobia.

This situation has been aggravated from the moment in which all the weight of the demands was transferred to the cultural or symbolic sphere. The emphasis on identities, in addition to highlighting differences and increasing borders and exclusions, leaves out of the analysis the structures of domination and the material conditions of life. In other words, there is a total depoliticization of the phenomenon of sexuality, turning it into a merely personal matter. As a consequence, they end up creating a multitude of groups, which find nothing in common between them and, therefore, cannot unite, that is, constitute themselves as a political subject, to carry out profound social transformations that allow the inclusion of these under equal conditions, only some very limited objectives are achieved that leave intact the structures that cause that discrimination. This condemns them to compete with each other to achieve their goals. The emphasis on identities from an individual and personal point of view has produced a simplification in the analysis and a loss of vision of the complexity of the phenomena. In addition, the emphasis on identities leads to organize politically around the interests of each group, without taking into account how these claims affect the rest of the groups.

The political model of explanation of sexuality, mostly developed by feminism and, more specifically, by feminism-the lesbian, considers sexuality as a political and social construction that aims to maintain the patriarchal system through the institution of heterosexuality mandatory. This means the exclusion of all kinds of sexualities that do not respond to this social organization scheme. Therefore, without the elimination of patriarchy and heterosexuality as a hegemonic model, it is not possible to end the discrimination suffered by sexual minorities. However, the dominant claim of the LGBT collective, based on queer theory, responds to a naturalistic model, not only of homosexuality, but of sexuality in general. That is, sexuality has a biological origin, so non -heterosexual people cannot be responsible for their sexual preferences. Sexuality has been considered as a political and social construction (lesbian feminism approach], to a biological interpretation represented by the "sexual orientation" model that gays defend. The objective, therefore, is not the transformation of the social system, but the modification of borders so that those people who previously considered system dissidents are included. This depoliticization responds to a strategy that implies the acceptance of certain types of sexualities in exchange for avoiding the transformation of the structures of power prevailing around the sex-gender system.

In the same way, lesbian feminism has always raised lesbianism as a political option, something that could be chosen by women to get out of patriarchal oppression; however, when women stop having their own spaces for debate and are integrated into the LGBT movement, these approaches have been censored, political explanations of sexuality have disappeared from the debate as a "space of resistance to heterosexuality and patriarchy" [1], assimilating, in this way, the gay approach that is biologistic and, therefore, depoliticized [1].

This depoliticization affects the conception of what is trans in the same way. Transsexuality is considered something biological and never a cultural association between sexual organs and social roles. Similarly, gender is considered an essential characteristic in human beings, hence the interest shown by these currents in

so-called "trans childhoods," coinciding with the most reactionary and traditional patriarchal discourses, with the only difference that now, sex separate from gender, or more specifically, instead of trying to adapt gender to sex, as has traditionally been done, what is intended is to adjust sex to the gender with which that person claims to identify. However, at the same time and in a contradictory way, it is affirmed that identities are fluid, malleable and that they depend on the will and desires of the subjects. This aims to question the political subject of feminism and the legitimacy of women in the fight against the conditions of oppression to which they are subjected because of their sex; as well as neutralize the advances in terms of equality achieved by the feminist movement. This is what has been called: homopatriarchy.

Gays are involved in a conflict of interest within the LGBT community, since, at the same time that they want to stop being discriminated against for their sexual preferences, they want to continue maintaining their privileges as men, so criticism of patriarchy is out of the question. However, in his analyses, it is not possible to transform the institution of compulsory heterosexuality or heterosexism, without eliminating the patriarchy that is at the base of that system.

Luisa Posada Kubissa comments on this that:

"The system of patriarchal domination is a system with social, sexual, political, symbolic and economic dimensions. The resistance to heteronormative sexuality and its deconstruction supposes a resistance to one of the dimensions of the patriarchal system, but not to patriarchy as a system of total domination -if, furthermore, it were even possible to transform some dimension of patriarchal domination without transforming the rest. In short, the eradication of gender subordination that feminism proposes can and should be allied with the transgender and queer movements, but we believe here that it has to continue to be a substantive, radical and critical struggle. A struggle with its own long history, its own signs of identity and its own interests, which cannot come to be dissolved in these movements, but rather have to be oriented towards a main objective: to eradicate inequality and patriarchal oppression of half of the humanity" [20].

The same thing happens with gender. Queer theory pretends that it is simply an identity. These movements consider that identity is something completely flexible, modifiable, selectable. Therefore, gender would be something that anyone can modify at will. However, feminism defends that gender is a patriarchal structure of domination of women. In no case would it be an identity, although, obviously, the gender in which we have been educated constitutes an essential part of our identity.

Overcoming gender so that it ceases to be important is not the same as multiplying genders to overcome the sexual binarism [21]. Because, as Posada Kubissa points out, the female "gender identity" is constructed in opposition to the male model that is dominant. We could add that the rest of the genders proposed by queer theory and transfeminism can only be created taking as a reference the hegemonic model of masculinity and the masculine-feminine binarism, so, ultimately, this approach is not it leaves the established paradigm [20].

"Queer theory makes a general critique of the gender system and heteronormativity, but confronts gender as if it oppressed men and women in the same way, as if it were inscribed neutrally on bodies, often forgetting that the what gender inscribes on the bodies is the hierarchy and also forgetting the material conditions of existence to which said gendered inscription on the feminine and masculine bodies gives rise. Queer theory presents us with a depoliticized gender that is unrelated to women's real lives, unrelated to economic inequality, violence, or freedom of movement or choice.

*Perspective Chapter: Considerations about Sexual and Gender Identities and Their Influence… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.108686*

As Jeffreys denounces, power relations have disappeared from queer theory, as well as class privileges and unequal access to resources" [1].

Likewise, despite the fact that queer theory postulates that the intersectionality that occurs between all categories of oppression must be taken into account, at the same time issues such as the regularization of prostitution, pornography, and surrogacy are defended, using as I argue the right of people to freely use their bodies. These analyses never take into account the socioeconomic origin of the people who work in this field, nor the treatment that women receive in these areas. In other words, the material and economic aspects that condition the lives of these people are not considered, in a tacit defense of capitalist neoliberalism [22, 23].

### **7. Conclusions**

As we have developed throughout this work, identities are not as malleable or as flexible as claimed, nor are they as strongly linked to the will of individuals. Identities have more to do with the differentiation criteria established by the social system. These criteria seek to create a hierarchy that serves to place individuals in different places in the social structure. It must also be taken into account that they are created and maintained by certain hegemonic groups that control power in societies. The sexual and gender categories themselves have been created by a patriarchal system that has established only heterosexuality as legitimate and has excluded those who did not fit into these categories through medical and legal discourses.

Obviously, building identities based on structures created from the heteropatriarchal power, is nothing more than submitting to its designs, unless, these identities are established as a strategy to dismantle the discourse itself from which it starts. Which means that identities should not be understood as an end in themselves, but as a means to create a political subject that seeks the elimination of the social categories that build discrimination.

But, for this, it is not enough to pretend to carry out superficial changes that eliminate the most serious forms of discrimination, it is necessary to dismantle these discourses from the foundations, questioning the bases on which they are based. In other words, it would not only be about ending heteronormativity, but also seeking the disappearance of the patriarchy that has created heteronormativity as a strategy of domination.

Obviously, cultural conflicts are very important, and there are groups deeply discriminated against for this. However, it is necessary to find a balance between the two dimensions of injustice if we want to carry out real transformations in society and thus eliminate the injustices suffered by multiple groups and collectives. Cultural claims must be complemented by struggles for redistribution or economic justice. We cannot forget that subjects are not neutral from the social point of view, but are marked by a series of characteristics that place them at a certain point on the social scale. Pretending to ignore this would only perpetuate inequalities.

Identities are necessary for the construction of political subjects, but as long as they are not considered essential identities but policies of resistance to heterosexuality as an oppressive institution of the rest of sexualities.

Likewise, we propose to avoid identity politics as much as possible to replace it with policies that seek the disappearance of collective identities, so that the objective is the equality of all people as individuals, not as members of groups.

This last proposal would need to be done gradually, since it is true that some groups and collectives are in a situation of social disadvantage, so they cannot achieve equality as simple members of the citizenry. But it would be necessary to establish objectives that seek the deconstruction of the symbolic and cultural structure of society, as well as economic transformation, rather than identity policies that reinforce the difference of these groups.

From our point of view, the emphasis on identities will end up causing a deep fragmentation in the LGBT community, creating a multitude of unconnected groups that will defend their immediate and particular interests, competing with the rest.
