Chat with us, powered by LiveChat
top of page

Sex Mimics are Mimics (Part 2)

Sensing vs thinking and the tools needed to dispel mimetic signal falsification

We are sharing this recent article with permission from Known Heretic's Substack, written by Amy Sousa, MA Depth Psychology, @knownheretic on Twitter.

You can find the original piece and more here:

The Mimic is Not the Model

Part 1 1 of this series made the observation that the word “trans” interrupts direct sense perception with cognitive dissonance. The man who calls himself “trans” is simply performing the activity of sex mimicry. “Trans” is a lens that has been engineered to indoctrinate people into interpreting the behavior of sex mimicry where the mimic is meant to be perceived as the model. Without the interpretive lens the behavior would be directly perceived for what it actually is, ie., a man in a dress is simply a man in a dress, rather than a “transwoman.” The cultural trend of “trans” operates as a magician waving a magic wand and chanting “abracadabra” towards the crowd. It functionally distracts people from the authority of their own directly perceived reality and acts as a conceptual disguise that hides and transforms the reality of what is really there. The word “trans” is an attempt to magically turns the man in a dress into a “transwoman.”

Referencing available research about sex mimicry in animals and plants helps provide a material way of perceiving human sex mimics. Even when faced with deception, animals respond to their environment instinctually with direct sensory perceptions. Whereas current social engineering is programming humans to deny their instincts and to respond to human sex mimics with mental analysis of cultural symbols. For multiple reasons, but most critically for safeguarding reasons, it is essential to stay grounded in our primary sensations—what our eyes, ears, and senses instantaneously convey to us about reality. When cognitive dissonance interrupts our immediate perceptions, it dissociates us from our instinctual responses and distracts us from valuable response time with mental judgments.

A man who practices sex mimicry and calls it “trans identity” is fabricating a false narrative about himself based solely on his own self-declaration and telling the rest of us to go along with his narrative of “I am what I say I am.” Political and social coercion is also directed at the receivers of this false narrative, forcing us to choose between going along with the self-conception of a stranger or standing in the authority of our own body’s sensed perceptions of reality. The dichotomy is one of thinking vs sensing where the thought we are being pressured to hold about this man is at odds with the directly sensed reality of our eyes and ears.

Signals & Signal Receivers

The Satanic Leaf-Tailed Gecko disguises itself as a dead leaf to both attract prey and hide from predators.

While we can perceive that the mimic is not the model, we recognize the external signals the mimic uses in order to communicate his attempt to be read as the model. Men who practice sex mimicry may use signals such as wearing clothes traditionally reserved for women, wearing the makeup that women wear, wearing padded bras or corsets, and in extreme cases, they may take drugs and get extreme plastic surgery to alter the external appearance of their bodies. In plant & animal mimicry we know that “signals develop only when a potential receiver is able to perceive them. In other words, the development of a signal occurs only where there is an association between sender and signal-receiver.” 2 The dead leaf disguise of the Satanic Leaf-Tailed Gecko is an effective mimetic signal because both predators & prey recognize dead leaves. Human mimics also rely on the use of familiar signals. The signals men use to perform mimicry are already imbued with a meaningful symbolic shorthand understood to communicate female traits. The signaler relies on the previous associations the signal receiver has with the symbolic objects and actions.

The very nature of the longevity of the historical symbol lends it credibility and authority. Over time the successive reproduction of the symbol constructs a narrative that is seemingly so ubiquitous as to be inevitable, irreversible, and most of all invisible.

Any human-made object that is used for signaling, in and of itself, is value-neutral. Metals, fabrics, and pigments, are found materials that humans use and shape in order to adorn and signify. All cultures have used adornments, and it is these specific cultures that imbue neutral objects with signification. Makeup, for example, is essentially face paint, a pigment to be used on the body. Pigment in and of itself is value-neutral. It is only when this pigment is applied in ways that are socially ascribed as “for women” that it takes on a specific designation. Makeup as it has been used in dominant western and eastern traditions has been ascribed such a one-sided hyper-feminine value that to read makeup on any person, male or female, is to read the designation of femininity. Our indoctrination into reading cultural symbols starts at birth. It is also generational and historical. The very nature of the longevity of the historical symbol lends it credibility and authority. Over time the successive reproduction of the symbol constructs a narrative that is seemingly so ubiquitous as to be inevitable, irreversible, and most of all invisible. The history of women’s makeup in art and advertising is so effective it has become symbolically synonymous with women.

Makeup is not just sold as glamorous, it is used in order to perform a glamor, a mystification, to conjure up the image of femininity regardless of the sex who wears it.

By using makeup and other symbolically infused objects, the human sex mimic is attempting to consciously construct the perceptions of those around him. He is attempting to present an image of himself that conjures up femininity in those already indoctrinated into reading cultural symbology. Although he can never be a woman, he relies on using signals that make use of the learned assumptions of the signal-receivers. He is hoping you will read the shorthand of femininity and ascribe this to him while glossing over the truth of what is underneath. While women themselves use many objects symbolically infused with femininity, they do not need to use these objects to be perceived as a woman.

When it is effective “mimicry serves to deceive a signal-receiver.” Deception is the goal, and the human mimic attempts to deceive at the level of both cognition and perception. At the cognition level, the use of the linguistic disguise “transgender” is telling you this person is something “other” than their perceived sex, at the level of perception, symbolic hacks are used to signal the “trans” status of the person in question, eg. makeup, wigs, false breasts, dresses, etc. In general, neither humans nor animals like being deceived. However, while many humans in the presence of human mimics tend to go along with the false narrative of “transgender",” animals, on the other hand, do all they can to dispel false signals.

These horses are not fooled by the trick being played on them. Here they are pictured trying to remove the disguise from these humans. While the humans involved may think they are being clever, the horses could smell the truth. Horses have an accessory olfactory system known as the vomeronasal organ that detects pheromones and volatile odors. Horses have about 300 million olfactory receptors, which is considerably higher than humans (five or six million olfactory receptors).

In animals, “one-sided interest can lead to the specialization of the signal-receiver… a one-sided interest can also lead to the dismantling of a signal.” In animal mimicry, the signal receiver has a vested interest in being able to distinguish the mimic from the model. At a survival level, animal signal receivers are trying to avoid being eaten by a predator mimic, or trying to decipher which prey mimics are edible, or trying to stop copulation with a sex mimic. Because of the survival stakes of being duped by a mimic, animals attempt to adapt to recognize and dispel false signals. If a bird recognizes the movement of the Satanic Leaf-Tailed Gecko for what it is, the bird does not hesitate to make the gecko her meal. This is possible because animals neither deny their sense perceptions nor do they have any external pressure or internal judgments about responding in their own interest. The bird has no cognitive dissonance or emotional pressures that would stop her from feeding herself and her young.

Emotional Manipulation

As mentioned in Part 1, the collusion of state & corporate interests has engineered popular rhetoric around the issue of “transgender.” 3 This engineering includes educational materials, sloganeering, and publicity that tell the public how they are supposed to think about the issue and the public is meant to deny what they perceive. This rhetoric uses the tools of false positivity, shame, guilt, empathy, and pseudo-academic tautological jargon to emotionally control the narrative of allowable thought. Words like “inclusion” and “validation” are slyly positive, meant to arouse feelings of altruism, but these words are being used as a direct wedge to violate women’s boundaries. “Inclusion” as a principle is only valuable when used in appropriate circumstances. When planning a third-grade birthday party to which the whole class is invited, “inclusion” is a kindness. But when planning for sex-based safeguarding in women’s spaces like prisons, shelters, sports, locker rooms, and bathrooms, the word “inclusion” is actually “intrusion.” It is a boundary violation, and rather than being a kindness, it’s open abuse to women and girls.

Emotionally charged linguistic turnarounds are a tactic consistently employed on behalf of this agenda. Words like “bigot” and “transphobic” are used to shame and vilify those who refuse to deny the reality of sex. Truth tellers become wrong thinkers. Women who assert they are human beings wholly unique from men, who demand respect for their bodies, who fight for protections based on the immutable characteristic of sex are also called “TERFs.” These words are meant to shame, vilify, shun, and silence. Guilt by association is also employed, just as seen in the Salem witch trials and in McCarthyism, one must not only have the proper beliefs, one must renounce the witch, renounce the red, renounce the TERF. The ferocity with which opposition is suppressed is emotionally charged.

Suicide claims are also used to create guilt in those trying to protect children from unnecessary medicalization. If a husband used a suicide threat to stop his wife from divorcing him, the psychiatric community would rightly recognize that as a narcissistic manipulation tactic. But suicide threats are consistently employed when attempting to garner sympathy for the “trans child.” The invention of the “trans child” was a strategic maneuver to work on the empathy of those who reject and are disgusted by the paraphilias of adult men. 4 Back when these men were still called "transexuals," their breast implant surgeries were understood as a luxury, but now double mastectomies for young girls are spoken of as "life-saving."

Lastly among the tactics of emotional manipulation, words like “gender identity,” “cisgender,” and “gender dysphoria” are used to make those who understand their high school biology lessons feel stupid, confused, and behind the times. These scientific-sounding terms are used to subvert our basic understanding of reality. What millions of years of evolutionary honed instinct have instilled in every animal, including humans, we are now being encouraged to deny in the face of meaningless tautological jargon. As Jennifer Bilek observed, “the word ‘transgender’ is not fit for communication.” 5

The word transgenderism is not fit for communication. It does not define anything clearly, but rather obscures the industry manifested in its name. It’s an umbrella term with no borders, under which sit too many conflicting ideas, allowing its definitional goalposts to move whenever anyone critiques its ideology and the markets formed around it. Instituting gender identity as a legal concept deconstructs what it means to be human, since we are a biologically and sexually dimorphic species. What is happening is that the corporate state is deconstructing sex as a step toward alienating us from our humanity. Endless discussions about “gender identity” obscure this fact. -Jennifer Bilek

All of these tactics guilt, shame, empathy, false positivity, and the jargon of false expertise are emotional manipulation tactics used to control discourse and manage dissent. These external judgments are meant to work on our egos where the choice before is to trust our instincts and be labeled an evil TERF, or be a good progressive-minded person. We are being pressured to outsource our own internal authority, the authority of our bodies, our own emotional integrity, and our right to name reality. Animals are not troubled by these kinds of mental judgments when it comes to responding to their senses. The horses in the above video are neither concerned with what the cheating humans think about them, nor what the other horses think about them while they attempt to unmask the false horse. Their response is instinctual, embodied, and trusting in their senses.


This mass social engineering has been largely effective. Many believe it, many go along with it publicly and keep their reservations private, and only a few people openly reject and expose the lies. If humans behaved as animal signal receivers do when faced with a false model, we would stay grounded in our senses and attempt to see the model for who he is rather than participate in our own cognitive dissonance and emotional manipulations. We would recognize the very obvious attempts being used to control our perception and we would openly question the motives not just of false models, but the purpose of the entire agenda.

In all animals, the adaptive capacity of “cheater detection” is a primary feature of social species, and animals that are lacking this skill are at risk of being consumed, starving, or not carrying on their line through reproduction. The capacity for detection is central to the integrity of a group or a society. If cheaters are allowed to flourish, the group itself is in peril. Ironically, while we still recognize this and write about it in our scientific journals when it comes to animal societies, somehow many are complicit in denying the importance of recognizing cheaters when it comes to our own human cultures.

Through Bernays level/Big Tobacco level social engineering, publicity, & propaganda, humans are being directed to live in our cognitive dissonance and to deny our senses when it comes to the practice of human sex mimicry called “transgender.” Linguistic abracadabras, symbolically infused signifiers, and emotional manipulations are all being used to bypass instincts and dissociate us from our direct sense perceptions of reality. Negative value-laden judgments are being projected into the culture to interrupt our primary responses with mental self-reflections. Women are being shamed for our refusal to deny the authority of our own bodies when it comes to sex recognition. But we can neither understand nor analyze sex-based crimes effectively without recognizing sex and the importance of sex-based safeguarding. Even more importantly when it comes to child development and safeguarding, children are being indoctrinated to deny their ability to recognize sex. Children are being told to distrust the authority of their own eyes and ears, to distrust the authority of their own bodies when it comes to sex recognition. Children who are groomed into a dissociative state can’t develop healthy bodily autonomy and appropriate boundaries.

Trusting the authority of our own sense perceptions of reality is the foundational building block of safeguarding and survival. Our animal counterparts are not caught up in cognitive dissonance, visually manipulative slights of hand, and emotional manipulations that interfere with their survival instincts. By sticking to our primary instincts, we too can dispel the symbols of the mimics in our midst.

The “man in a dress” is just a man in a dress, nothing more, nothing less.


2Wickler, W. (1974). Mimicry in plants and animals. New York, NY: Would University Library.

3See the work of K. Yang,, also Jennifer Bilek,




bottom of page