We are sharing this recent article with permission from Known Heretic's Substack, written by Amy Sousa, @knownheretic on Twitter.
You can find the original piece and more here:
In this powerful piece, Amy Sousa calls to light the "abracadabra, a hocus pocus, and alakazam" used by a mass propaganda system to further forward the "transgender" agenda. She thoughtfully explains the cognitive dissonance we are asked to undergo daily in the name of inclusivity and why it equates to nothing more than a surface level acceptance of an individuals performance of the opposite sex.
Amy Sousa is one of the expert panelists we are hosting at our upcoming event in Austin, Texas on April 20th- It's Bigger than Texas: Exposing the Gender Industry in America.
Amy is a talented writer and a Women's rights activist, educator, & facilitator whose work focuses on embodiment, boundaries, intuition, instincts, & sense perceptions as internal authority-building practices and safeguarding basics. We are proud to share this piece with you and we look forward to part two!
Mimics in Our Midst
There are sex mimics living amongst us.
The term “transgender” has recently been thrust into public discourse but there is no such category of person. Instead, I define these people as sex mimics. This language more accurately describes the behavior involved with the practice. Human sex mimics often take body-altering drugs, practice extreme plastic surgery, and adorn themselves in ways that disguise their own sex in order to mimic the opposite sex. Using the biological language of “sex mimic” rather than “transgender” is a choice to reject any linguistic cognitive dissonance and a grounding in the underlying truth that there is no such thing as someone who is something other than a man or woman, boy or girl. Even those people born with the type of DSD conditions that involve ambiguous genitalia are still on one sexual developmental path or the other, there is no third gamete and no third or "other” sex. There are two sexes in all mammalian species, including humans. This is simply a fact.
Because of the rapid increase in people choosing the term “transgender” to self-define their identity and also because of the exponential proliferation of “trans” publicity, branding, and narratives constantly pushed forward in the public eye, it behooves us to understand why some men and women are choosing this “identity” for themselves and for their children, as well as why a mass propaganda system is being utilized and directed to normalize and legitimize the term in public usage, language, and law. By studying animal mimicry, animal instincts, and staying close to our primal sense perceptions, we can learn much about the best ways to safeguard ourselves against those directly trying to deceive our senses through mental manipulation. Reviving these inborn instinctual capacities can also help arm us against the mass social indoctrination campaign being used to elicit our compliance with the “transgender agenda.” This agenda is defined by LGBT whistleblower, K.Yang, as a vast “collusion between supranational governing bodies… to actualize legal and social change… that undermine & terminate: sex-based protections for females, child-safeguarding, and the binary of sex –male and female– as measurable categories.” 1
The word “abracadabra” dates back to the 2nd century (101-200 AD) and translates roughly to “I create as I speak.” The idea that one can voice an idea and speak it into reality, or that what we say creates our reality is an old gambit. Magicians, charlatans, and con men have all used magic words like abracadabra, hocus pocus, alakazam, and other intentional wordplay to both focus the audience’s attention and distract while the trick takes place right in front of their eyes. The nonsense words create a subterfuge of a seeming explanation for what is otherwise unexplainable in order to disguise what is actually happening. Magic words are a psychological misdirection.
To “pull a rabbit out of the hat” is to do something seemingly impossible that has no obvious explanation. “Trans” is a mental hat trick, and one in which the rabbit might be a lion in disguise.
Never has there been such a psychological misdirection as the word “transgender.” The word “transgender” performs the function of distraction, explanation, and disguise. The given definition of “transgender” according to Merriam-Webster is a person whose gender identity or gender expression does not correspond with their sex assigned at birth. 2 The term is taken to literally mean that some people are “born in the wrong body,” and that they can “change sex” through “sex reassignment surgery.” The term "transgender" obscures the basic truth: Humans can’t change sex. To be a woman is to be on a lifelong sexual developmental pathway organized around the production of large immotile gametes. This path starts at birth and ends in death. The vastness of this lifelong embodied developmental cycle can't be reduced to any single primary sex organ or secondary sex characteristic. Men are on a completely different pathway, having a lifelong sexual developmental process organized around the production of small motile gametes. Once you are on one of these paths, there is no "jumping tracks" so to speak. Humans can no more change from one sex to another than an animal can become a plant or a fungus, or a mammal can become a reptile or fish.
Never has there been such a psychological misdirection as the word “transgender.” The word “transgender” performs the function of distraction, explanation, and disguise.
In reality, the people referred to by the recently manufactured term “transgender” are simply people who have taken a series of actions that they perform (and must continue to perform) on their bodies. Practically speaking, the word “transgender” does two things: 1. It describes a set of behaviors, and 2. Acts as a lens for behavior interpretation. The word “transgender” is used to describe the performative activities of sex mimicry that some people undertake. And it is also the necessary ideological belief needed in order to accurately interpret the behavior of people taking on the practice. The definition and propaganda surrounding the term are designed to fool the masses into believing that "trans" is an innate characteristic of the people who self-define as "trans". 3 But one would not be able to see "trans people" without the physical performance of it, and one would not be able to understand the performance without the ideological interpretation. Without the "trans" lens to interpret the behavior, a man in a dress is just a man in a dress.
If the term “trans” did not exist there would be no mental interference that would obscure the literal interpretation of the pictures of these men.
It is important to underscore that these actions, behaviors, and external signaling are superficial. These are men/women/kids who take drugs, including puberty blockers and wrong sex hormones, practice extreme plastic surgery, go so far as to amputate and mutilate their sexual reproductive organs and anatomy, and who adopt the culturally designated wardrobe, makeup, and styling stereotypically prescribed to the opposite sex in order to achieve the overall appearance of a member of the opposite sex. I define these people as human sex mimics.
Sensory Signals vs Abstract Symbols
Much has been studied about adaptive mimicry in animals (and plants). Mimicry is an adaptive occurrence when one species of animal takes on the characteristics, including behavior, appearance, or chemical signaling of the model in order to dupe either potential predators or sexual competitors. Batesian mimicry is the term used when a typical prey species takes on the traits of a known toxic or predatory species. Sexual mimicry is when weaker males take on the traits of females of the same species in order to evade more alpha males for purposes of sexual conquest.
“Understanding what constrains signaling and maintains signal honesty is a central theme in animal communication. Clear cases of dishonest signaling, and the conditions under which they are used, represent an important avenue for improved understanding of animal communication systems.” 4
Animals communicate using sensory cues and process communications through their sensory systems. These communications help with social relations and survival including establishing dominance, mate selection, claiming territory, group cohesion, the caring for young, and warding off prey. This “signaling” is communicated and received through visual, auditory, chemical, and tactile sense organs. Species’ survival depends on their ability to respond to these signals with the appropriate behavior. There are many heritable communication behaviors, behaviors taught from parent to young, and those taught through group social interactions.
Whereas animals communicate primarily through sensory signals and responses, humans primarily use abstract grammatical designators 5 (what we call written, verbal, or signed language.) Although humans have developed a large prefrontal cortex that allows us to communicate with abstract symbolic and alphabetic language systems, our older brain systems, what is colloquially referred to as the mammalian and reptile brains, or the parietal, temporal, occipital lobes, and basal ganglia, process information the same way as our animal counterparts, through processing sensory signals through our sensory organs. Humans, like all animals, have heritable communication behaviors. Certain facial cues, gestures, and responses are common to all humans. Sex recognition is another heritable trait and infants as young as ten weeks old can distinguish between men and women. 6 The part of our brains that respond to sensory input processes this form of communication far more rapidly than our prefrontal cortex can process communication in the form of grammatical designators. Sensory information is received by the body in an all-at-once manner and thus processes input instantaneously. For example, when your foot steps on a tack, your body responds instantaneously by pulling your foot away. You do not have to “think” about the situation, that is to say, you do not have to intellectually understand or mentally analyze what is happening through any prefrontal cortex calculations, the parietal lobe responds to the sensory signal with immediacy.
Human civilization cultures have been constructed to overvalue rational processes to the detriment of staying close to our sensory perceptions and animal instincts.
The prefrontal cortex processes information in a rational, analytical, and judgmental manner. Language must be processed in a linear, sequential, plodding manner where the full realization of the information being communicated cannot be understood until all the parts of the whole are put together. Understanding this essay cannot be fully realized until one comes to the end and puts all the sentences in all the paragraphs altogether.
While sensory cues are immediately processed by the limbic brain and basal ganglia, they are also processed by the prefrontal cortex. The prefrontal cortex seeks a mental understanding of sensory events in the form of analysis or judgment which is processed after the fact. In the example of the foot stepping on a tack, it is only after the fact that the prefrontal cortex analyzes that the pain being communicated was the result of the sharpness of the tack that was dropped when hanging a poster on the wall. In the moment of response, the foot simply pulls away from the pain signal, without having to discover and accurately identify the object causing the pain or understand the series of events of how it came to be there.
The human cultures which have organized into civilizations have overvalued rational processes sometimes to the detriment of staying close to our sensory perceptions and animal instincts. These instinctual responses have often become invisible to our conscious understandings. This is why we often times rationalize ourselves out of responding to our instinctual cues. If, for example, a woman gets a fearful feeling about stepping into an elevator with a lone man, she may rationalize that he is dressed nicely or that he smiled at her and talk herself out of responding to her instinct not to get on the elevator. Other animals do not have this flaw. When they sense fear, they do not stand around analyzing potential outcomes, make rationalizations about whether or not the larger animal is truly a predator, or create stories about why the other animal has come into their territory. They respond to their instincts with immediacy. Leading safeguarding expert, Gavin de Becker, speaks of exactly this in his book, The Gift of Fear.
Mental Story vs Lived Immediacy
The word “transgender” is an example of how rationalizations, abstract ideas, and conceptual mentations can disrupt our natural instinctual responses. In previous times, if one was presented with a man in a dress, there would have been no cognitive dissonance, nothing to think about or analyze, one would simply be responding to what was presented, a man in a dress. To understand the man as a “transwoman” is to create a mental story about the man in a dress.
The word, “transgender” is the manufacture and production of cognitive dissonance into the culture. Now, when one sees a man in a dress, the cultural script of “transgender” actively interrupts usual sensory signal responses. According to the constructed doctrine, one is meant to mentally analyze the reason for this man’s style choices. One is supposed to stop and do the mental computations and calculations about why the man has chosen this behavior, perhaps he is a drag queen, perhaps he is simply nonconforming, maybe he calls himself “non-binary,” or maybe he claims to be a “transwoman,” or maybe he is a man with nefarious reasons for disguising his appearance. Of course, there is no way of knowing instantaneously. The point is, as soon as one has begun a cognitive process of laying out a series of choices for analysis, one has left the immediacy of instincts and sense perceptions and has moved into the realm of mental judgments. If you are performing these mental calculations, you have stopped responding to your instincts. Instinctual responses are instantaneous. But because the cognitive thinking process analyzes and rationalizes input in order to arrive at a judgment, it is much slower by comparison. To be dissociated from one’s instincts in order to manufacture a story about another person’s style choices is to lose valuable response time in instances of potential danger.
Cognitively, the word “transgender” is an abracadabra, a hocus pocus, an alakazam. It’s a misdirect created to disguise. It’s a distraction from reality, an attempt to explain the impossible in order to magically transform the reality of what is given. It’s a cognitive dissonance in that it is something one must think about in order to understand. This word and the conceptual abstraction that it represents are at direct odds with immediate sense perceptions of reality. 7 When the word is taken on as a performance, it is also an attempt at sex mimicry through performative adaptations and behaviors. The word is a story explaining why someone has taken on that performance.
The Sex Mimic is Not the Model
Ironically, the only way to understand the meaning of the word “transgender” is by first being grounded in the primacy of sensed reality. One must have a clear understanding of the material reality of the sex classes of men and women and then reorganize that reality into an abstraction in which what is represented by sense reality means something other than what is presented. The man in a dress is no longer “a man in a dress,” but a “transwoman.”
Magic isn’t magical unless one first understands the physics of reality. Without grounding in reality, pulling a rabbit out of a hat would have no special significance. In the same way, understanding the reality of sexual dimorphism is necessary to understand the transformative significance of the word and performance of “transgender.” The external signals of the sex mimic are only understood if one is grounded in the reality of the model sex. But the mimic is not the model.
This is to say, “transgender” which is the attempt to performatively mimic the opposite sex, cannot be understood without first understanding the truth of our lifelong sexual developmental pathways (there are two sex classes in mammals.) But the thing about developmental pathways, is you can’t jump off of one and onto another. You can’t jump off the path of developing as an animal in order to become a plant, you can’t jump off of developing as a mammal in order to become an insect, you can’t jump off of developing as a primate in order to become a rodent, and you can’t jump off of developing as a man in order to become a woman. The “man in a dress” is still a man in a dress, there is nothing else there, no transformation has taken place.
Most human sex mimics are not very effective. Men’s use of the sexualized cultural adornments associated with womanhood mostly comes across as a grotesque caricature. In these cases, it is even more galling that women and girls are being pressured to deny the authority of our own senses in order to placate a man’s charade. And this is why we must resist, we must not comply with external pressure to deny the authority of our own eyes and ears. For the sake of safeguarding, we must remain responsive to our primary instincts for sex recognition and direct sense perceptions of reality. I urge everyone not to let any linguistic abracadabra distract you from being able to see the “man in a dress” for exactly what he is. He is a man. And while most men who practice sex mimicry are not very convincing, regardless of how adept men are at performing female sex mimicry, all men remain the same amount physically male as the day they were born.
Sex mimics are mimics. 8
Sex Mimics are Mimics, Part 2 coming soon…
We're looking forward to more of Amy's Sousa's well-informed and insightful work. Thank you for reading!