Kafka Trap Fallacy?

I wanted to mention that the published book does not contain a fallacy called, "The Kafka Trap".

It is a logically fallacy where if y denies being x, it is taken as evidence that y is x because only, "y would deny being x".

An example of this can be similar when someone appeals to ignorance, "Mike said that he is an FBI Agent, but only an FBI Agent would hide their identity, therefore Mike is an FBI Agent".

However, there are different argumentative forms of this where you don't appeal to ignorance for example, "Mike knows he is a sexist, because only a racist would deny being sexist".

I was just wondering on whether this was already mentioned?

"Mike knows he is a sexist, because only a [sexist] would deny being sexist".

Note the bold part of the quote. That's the assumption the conclusion rests on -  and it is a false assumption!  

It effectively states that the only reason to deny an accusation is if you are actually guilty. This is blatantly incorrect; an innocent person is also likely to deny an accusation against them, because they wish to establish and prove their innocence of the wrongdoing in question. So there is a reason other than the one mentioned in the claim to deny an accusation; thus, the assumption is not correct.

In a syllogism:

P1) Only a sexist would deny being sexist

P2) Mike denied being sexist

C) Mike is a sexist

This is a valid argument, but, as we discussed above, P1 is false, so the conclusion is not implied by any of its preceding premises!

I am pretty sure your kafka trap fallacy is actually a form of conspiracy theory fallacy.

Of course there is no evidence that X is up to something, because obviously being up to something X concealed/hid all the evidence.