When carrying out political projects, the use of homosexual/heterosexual or trans*/cis distinctions as exclusive categories of analysis may limit our understanding of the complexity of belongings in which each subject is positioned. In many cases, including some queer approaches, this strategy provides for a simplification which attributes a radical or subversive nature to the first term of the pair and a normal or even repressive one to the second. The former case results in what is here called a "homo-trans*-revolution series”; the latter, in a "hetero-cis-repression series". In both instances, a passage from generalization to reduction to invisibilization obstructs any understanding either of the conservative positions existent in the realm of the homo/trans*, or of the subversive and radical ones in the sphere of the hetero/cis. Exposing both of them will allow us to understand that a dissident, fertile collective political project cannot be based solely on sexuality or gender: it must build intersectional bridges based on political approaches and objectives, without falling into generalizations, and maintaining the flexibility we seek in queer approaches.