Have you noticed how the queer project reduces gender to fashion and colors and (simulated) phenotypic sex differences? If a man wants to “be” a woman, then he will wear clothes, makeup, accessories, etc., associated with the feminine stereotype generated by the corporate culture industry. He may also attempt to speak like a woman and act like a woman. He may turn to wrong sex hormones, radical cosmetic surgery, or starve himself to realize the industry standard of “womanhood.” His costume and performance are acts of deceptive mimicry.
Deceptive mimicry in the human species almost always result in bad simulation; despite his best efforts, a man rarely passes as a woman. Most men can see what he really is. Even more women can see through the deception. The man engaged in deceptive mimicry has trouble convincing himself that he is the thing he says or wants to be, demanding others participate in the simulation by referring to him using feminine pronouns and chanting obvious falsehoods like “trans women are women.”
Most of those who say they see a woman in the simulation are lying. Many people feel compelled to act in bad faith because they either want to believe the ideology or they know they will be canceled or disciplined if they don’t act like they do. This is why public education and other organs of indoctrination are confusing children at early ages: queering spaces is a strategy for disrupting the innate gender recognition faculty before it is fully primed.
Meanwhile, women walk about in jeans and tennis shoes, with no makeup. Women don’t need to put on all the sociocultural and phenotypic indicators of womanhood because everybody can see they’re women. They don’t have to try to be women because they are women. They have no need to deceive others (or themselves) in this way because they are psychologically ordered. To be sure, there are women who adopt and internalize—then externalize—the culturally-mediated stereotype of womanhood by drastically altering their bodies. Thankfully, most Western women don’t do the extreme things because they’re busy being themselves and have successfully negotiated the misogyny that surrounds them (the triumph of feminism has been impactful). But the queer project seeks more bodies to corrupt—as does the medical-industrial complex—and so their grasp on reality is always being challenged.
(There is also a growing number of women who, in trying to shed the signs of their gender, reach for sociocultural and phenotypic indicators of masculinity. Many women inclined in this way refer to themselves as “nonbinary.” Oddly, in establishing this identity, they do things to appear more stereotypically masculine, including taking testosterone and amputating their breasts. I may take up this matter in a future essay, but it is a serious problem that deserves at least mention in this context.)
In nature, mimicry is a phenomenon where one organism imitates another for survival-related purposes. In this essay, I overview the taxonomy of the different types of mimicry in nature to suggest metaphors for more effectively conveying the problem with deceptive mimicry among humans. I then turn to the disciplines of sociology and anthropology to show how mimicry in the human species is far more common that the reader might think. Here we move beyond metaphor to identify the deceptive and predatory forms of mimicry unique to our species.
* * *
Toxic mimicry is the form of mimicry where an organism mimics the appearance or behavior of a toxic or dangerous species in order to escape predation. In Batesian mimicry, an organism evolves to resemble a toxic or dangerous species; the mimic gains protection by being mistaken for the toxic species. An example is the viceroy butterfly, which mimics the toxic monarch butterfly. In Müllerian mimicry, two or more harmful species evolve to resemble each other. The shared resemblance helps reinforce the learned aversion in predators. For instance, species of stinging bees and wasps might evolve to share similar warning coloration.
There are other types of mimicry in nature. Automimicry or intraspecific mimicry occurs when different parts of the same organism mimic each other. Some butterflies, for instance, have wing patterns resembling eyes to deter predators. Social mimicry involves animals mimicking behaviors or appearances of other species for advantages. Hoverfly larvae mimic ant larvae to access ant colonies and feed on their resources. Plants also engage in mimicry. Some mimic the appearance or scent of other organisms to attract pollinators or deter herbivores. Orchids may mimic the scent of female insects to attract pollinating males. Put a pin in social mimicry. I will come back to it.
Aggressive mimicry is the opposite of toxic mimicry. It involves predators or parasites mimicking harmless organisms to deceive prey or potential hosts. The female anglerfish has a bioluminescent lure that hangs in front of her mouth. This lure attracts smaller fish, thinking it’s prey, only to become the anglerfish’s prey. Likewise, the alligator snapping turtle has a fleshy appendage on its tongue that resembles a worm, which it uses to attract fish. Some predatory fireflies mimic the light signals of other firefly species. The mimic’s deceptive flashes attract unsuspecting fireflies, which are then captured and eaten. The orchid mantis has evolved to resemble flowers, waiting on flowers for pollinators to come close and then ambushing them. Cuckoos are a bird species that practices a form of aggressive mimicry called brood parasitism. The cuckoo lays her eggs in the nests of another bird species, tricking the host birds into raising her chicks.
The death’s-head hawkmoth is known for its skull-like pattern on the thorax and aggressive mimicry, imitating honeybees in both appearance and sound. By producing high-frequency clicks similar to foraging bees, the moth can infiltrate beehives undetected. Once inside, the death’s-head hawkmoth feeds on honey without posing a direct threat to the bees. It exploits the bees’ natural defense mechanisms for its own survival and reproduction.
The takeaway here is that mimic takes advantage of the target’s lack of defensive response to facilitate predation or parasitism. Most life is unaware of the way nature has generated these many forms of deception that make continued existence uncertain. Humans, in contrast, are aware, or can be made aware, of mimicry and thus can identify and stop deception, which is usually a choice made by the mimic seeking satisfaction of some sort or another, whether achieving sexual gratification at another’s expense, such as in autogynephilia, pedophilia, or other paraphilias, or perpetrating acts of violence on women or humiliating them by gaining access to their spaces (bathrooms, shelters, sports).
That humans engage in deceptive mimicry is a useful observation for more effectively engaging the struggle against the queer project. In social mimicry, the act of imitating or copying the behavior, expressions, and gestures of others in social situations can establish rapport or connection which can then be used to manipulate a target person or group. Adopting certain cultural practices, habits, or traditions of other people, either consciously or unconsciously is cultural mimicry. On the popular front, fashion mimicry occurs when an individual imitates trends in clothing and style to fit in or identify with a particular group or subculture. There is also accent mimicry, where an individual adopts the speech patterns of those around him, often occurring when spending a significant amount of time with individuals with distinctive speech patterns. When an individual imitates the body language and movements of others (sometimes done unconsciously) to build rapport and establish a connection this is called mirroring. Mimicking the emotional expressions of others, such as smiling in response to someone else’s smile, contributing to social bonding, is known as emotional mimicry.
As indicated, sometimes these forms of mimicry are taken up unconsciously. As Adam Smith noted centuries ago in his moral sentiments thesis, humans are intrinsically sympathetic or what today we would term empathetic or empathic. The emphatic character of humans can be illustrated easily, such as in the phenomenon of yawn contagion (as Frans de Waal has shown, humans are not the only species susceptible to yawn contagion). When unconsciousness forms of mimicry spread throughout a group or on a mass level this is what is known as social contagion. Other times, it’s intentional, the mimic using the deception expressively to reach some desired emotional or psychological state, or instrumentally to manipulate others for personal benefit or for advancing the agenda of the group to which he belongs.
It is remarkable that tolerance for deceptive mimicry has become so embedded in Western societies. This development signals a very dark prospect for the future. Watch this video clip from the UK television program Good Morning Britain and I will explain afterwards why it illustrates the problem.
The logic of the argument is almost identical to an argument about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, or how many devils and demons there are in hell (7,405,926, according to Dutch demonologist Johann Weyer), except that the assumption at work here is even more absurd that those examples, since the proposition that a man can be a woman is a falsifiable one (and easily falsified). Yet the core assumption is that gender identity is a real thing.
What is gender identity? It is a self-opinion held by the person that is the gender he is not. The term was invented by psychiatrist and sexologist Robert Stoller. (Stoller also believed in the dream telepathy.) I will briefly review the basic concepts of sex and gender to clarify.
Gender (or sex—they’re synonyms) has four categories. Genotypic sex refers to the genetic or chromosomal sex of an individual. Humans typically have 23 pairs of chromosomes. The 23rd pair, known as the sex chromosomes, determines biological sex. XX denotes female; XY, male.
Phenotypic sex relates to the physical or observable characteristics that define an individual’s sex. This includes external genitalia, secondary sexual characteristics (such as facial hair or breast development), and other physical attributes typically associated with male or female.
There is associated with these types what sociologists have called sex or gender roles. The sex role refers to attitudes, behaviors, expectations, and societal norms associated with being male or female in a particular culture or society. Sex roles are often culturally defined and can vary significantly across different societies, encompassing societal expectations regarding how individuals of different genders should behave.
Finally, there is gender identity, which involves an individual’s deeply felt internal experience and sense of their own gender. This aspect is personal and may not necessarily conform to societal expectations.
Note that the last category is entirely subjective. That it is deeply felt doesn’t change the fact that there is no objective indicator that somebody other than a woman who identifies as a woman is one any more than there is such an indicator that shows that a white person who believes he is black really is black. When somebody tells us that they were abducted by aliens, it doesn’t make their claim any more compelling for them to insist that they genuinely believe they were abducted by aliens. The question must always be: what evidence can you provide that will allow us to independently confirm you were abducted by aliens?
Note also that while some aspects of the gender role are subjective, these aspects are shared across the population (they are intersubjective), and other aspects of gender roles are objective, that is they are observable, which is the matter of anthropological, historiographical, and sociological study. When John Money talked about gender roles and his sycophants treated the concept as if it were some great discovery, he was really simply taking the concept of the sex role from the social sciences and substituting “gender” for “sex,” at once cutting turf while manufacturing an assumption that sex and gender are distinct concepts. They’re not. There is nothing original or nontrivial in Money’s construct (the man was a hack).
Those who assume the truth of gender identity make several claims, e.g., gender identity may or may not align with the sex assigned at birth; as individuals may identify as male, female, both, neither, or somewhere along the gender spectrum. While these claims are true as personal opinions, there is no evidence they change the reality of gender. How could they? People remain either male or female regardless of self-opinion. Nor does the claim that the understanding of gender has evolved to recognize a spectrum beyond the traditional binary concept of male and female change the truth of the binary. If what has evolved for whatever reason is false, then, while it is certainly an understanding, it is not true.
India Willoughby believes he is a woman. At least he says he believes that. He is in fact a man. He not only cannot change that fact by adamantly asserting his delusion, but he also cannot change that fact by hormonally altering his physiology or surgically altering his body. Nor can he change that fact with the law at his back. Laws don’t determine objective reality.
Yet, Willoughby’s subjectivity must be taken as truth to debate whether it is a hate crime to “misgender” somebody. That the reality of angels is assumed by every person in the room is shown by treating as misgendering the practice of calling a trans woman a man. Once assumed it is, the question turns to whether the state should punish people who don’t believe that’s true by charging them with a hate crime. Leaving aside the problem of hate crime (which is really a euphemism for thought crime), in the real world, misgendering would be to call a trans woman a woman since his gender is in fact male. In other words, every time somebody refers to India Willoughby with feminine pronouns, his is misgendering him.
When I was in high school, I was very skinny (5’8” 118lbs), had no facial hair, my face had not yet masculinized, and I had hair down to my butt. Moreover, I dressed like Robert Plant (it was the 1970s). I was misgendered all the time (only by men, though; no girl ever misgendered me, but instead asked if she could brush my hair). When I was going to bars at aged 18-19, dudes would hit on me. They were chagrin when I opened my mouth and a man’s voice came out. They had misgendered me.
Had I claimed in these situations that I was a woman, left that assumption standing, it wouldn’t have changed my gender; mammals can’t do that as a matter of scientific fact. I would have instead deceived the heterosexual man who was looking for a date. If he had taken me home and we became intimate, then I would be guilty of sexual assault; the man did not consent to having sex with a man. (Maybe he wouldn’t care, but that’s beside the point. I still deceived him.)
Everybody in the Good Morning Britain clip is assuming the opposite of reality, accepting queer propaganda that literally inverts the meaning of misgendering. The construction “assigned sex at birth” is likewise propaganda. While observers may be mistaken, sex is never assigned. “Trans women are women” is also propaganda. All of this is so profoundly ideological that it should be immediately obvious to the rational person what it is.
So why is it not obvious to so many? This testifies to the power the queer lobby enjoys in shaping mass consciousness. This level and scope of control doesn’t happen by accident. There is behind it an intentional and well-organized project to confuse our language and construct an alternative reality where truth is subjective. This is why queer activists are desperate to get into public school classrooms and start confusing children at an early age. This is why we see the flags and books and placards in public spaces. The grooming of children is obvious in the deployment of children’s books and stickers of mermaids, rainbows, and unicorns.
If you cannot see this for what it is, then there are two possibilities. The first is that you have convinced yourself or somebody has convinced you that what is plainly untrue is real. You have assumed there are angels. The second possibility is that you are terrified at being canceled or disciplined. And for many, there is good reason to be afraid.
I, too, have been afraid. But I refuse to abide by such an obvious and destructive lie. I confess that a big part of this is pride. I don’t want to be made to look like a fool. At the same time, I am aware that if everybody around me can be convinced that men can become women, then I will certainly be made to look like a fool. I will be the sole sane man in open-air madhouse.
* * *
If you go to the AI (artificial intelligence) porn generator sexy.ai, and type “trans woman” and apply the Realistic Vision filter, it will consistently generate male faces and bodies that appear to have undergone feminizing procedures. AI scrapes from the massive body of photographic data available on the Internet to generate original images that simulate the search target. Because trans women are men, it is inevitable that AI will return male bodied simulations.
Why this is obvious to a human reviewing the images is because the human gender recognition system is primed by multiple observations from infancy that are then processed in an innate analog to factor analysis that naturally generates two factors: male and female bodies.
When an individual is gender ambiguous, a rare occurrence to be sure, the felt anxiety and curiosity generated is because the brain, knowing that every person (and other animals) is gendered, is tying to sort the observation into one of only two boxes. Children, who have not yet learned the skill of civil inattention, will often ask the person or another person about that person whether they are a boy or a girl. Tragically, those in charge of guiding children through their cognitive development will often lie to them about which gender the person really is.
freedom and reason 