Is Boris Johnson transitioning?

One would think that, having densely populated Planet Earth with children born on either side of the blanket, Boris Johnson doesn’t need to prove his masculinity to anyone.

However, some news items make one wonder if he has finally realised he is a woman trapped in a man’s body. That may not be the case, but he is certainly displaying some traits normally associated with the fair sex.

I realise how contentious this statement is. We’ve been told for several decades that no such distinctive traits exist. Men and women are supposed to be not just equal but identical in everything other than their primary sexual characteristics. Moreover, lately even such differentiators have been pronounced null and void.

Nevertheless I’m not prepared to defend the validity of this syllogism. Thesis: Women can have penises. Antithesis: Boris has proved he has one too. Synthesis: Boris is a woman.

No, this doesn’t quite add up logically. However, if one went strictly by empirical evidence, the case would become stronger.

First, I must establish my premises. One such is that women tend to respond to life more emotionally.

This isn’t a quality judgement but merely a lifelong observation. In many situations where a man would first swear but then act rationally, women would burst into tears and not act at all. They cry more often and more readily than men do, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

Another premise is that I don’t think women are less intelligent than men. In fact, taking my own family of two as an admittedly narrow sample, I’m more inclined to think they are more so.

Yet they are differently intelligent. If men tend to arrive at a solution by sequential logical steps, women often skip them and jump to the right conclusion intuitively. However, when a woman disregards this gift God gave her sex and tries to build a logical structure, she is more likely than a man to lose her way.

Then, and I do know I’m such a macho troglodyte that I don’t deserve to live, women tend to play a subservient role in a marriage, although someone forgot to teach this lesson to Penelope. Yet on the evidence of the hundreds if not thousands of couples I’ve known, it’s the men who tend to lead and the women who tend to follow.

Lord Tennyson found a poetic expression of these prosaic observations: “Man with the head and woman with the heart:/ Man to command and woman to obey;/ All else confusion.” In the same vein, St Paul taught that a woman should keep silent in church and, if she fails to grasp the finer points, she ought to ask her man for an explanation. Both the secular and ecclesiastical dicta imply the same hierarchy.

Having thus set my stall, let’s get back to Boris Johnson, starting with his article on HAMAS terrorism in Gaza. His first sentence is blatantly lachrymose: “When I saw the murder of those 260 revellers at the Nova music ­festival, I wept – as any father would – because those kids could have been yours or mine.”

Forgive me, but this is a woman’s reaction (always provided Mr Johnson isn’t just saying that to curry favour with his feminised audience). Call me a heartless brute incapable of empathy, but “could have been” is different from “were”.

I realise that, given Mr Johnson’s past, those children (not ‘kids’ – where Mr Johnson comes from, which isn’t the US, you can only produce a kid by mating with a goat) are indeed more likely to be his than mine. But barring that possibility, a man would more naturally respond to such savagery towards someone else’s children with rage, followed by a realistic plan of avenging and deterrent action.

To his credit, Mr Johnson then wiped his tears and proposed a solution: to give the Palestinians their own independent state, happily coexisting with Israel. I shan’t give a precise quotation because that’s the thrust of the whole article.

Israel’s 2005 withdrawal from Gaza could be interpreted as a tacit agreement and a move in that direction. Autonomy is a step towards self-government, which is a step towards statehood. So did the ‘Palestinians’ accept this overture with gratitude and a commitment to peace?

“On the contrary,” writes Mr Johnson, “the Gaza Strip became a launching pad for rocket attacks on Israel; an ­appalling advertisement for what two states could mean.”

I’m confused. He says that terrorist attacks on Israel, including the on-going monstrosity, are a taste of things to come from an independent Palestinian state.

I agree – hell, anybody with any brain and eyes to see will agree. Such a state would certainly be run by HAMAS and Hezbollah terrorists (if you remember, HAMAS was democratically elected in Gaza). It would be a terrorist state, and as such it would be better equipped than a stateless terrorist gang to act in the fashion “appallingly advertised”.

So why does Mr Johnson champion the two-state solution, which he himself suggests would make things worse? This is what the Russians – much to my indignation! – call ‘woman’s logic’.

That’s two proofs that Mr Johnson is trying to get in touch with his feminine side, if not actually transitioning. What about the third one, the role he plays in his family?

WhatsApp correspondence at the time of Covid has just come to light, in which Simon Chase, head of the civil service, complained to Lee Cain, Johnson’s head of communications, that Boris’s wife Carrie was “the real person in charge”, which made the government “a terrible, tragic joke”. “I am not sure I can cope,” he added.

Cain replied: “Wtf are we talking about.” Case explained: “Whatever Carrie cares about, I guess… I was always told that [Dominic Cummings, Johnson’s closest adviser] was the secret PM… Oh, f*** no, don’t worry about Dom, the real person in charge is Carrie.”

Even those not privy to the inner workings of 10 Downing Street, had similar suspicions.

Carrie, who married Johnson in 2021, having already produced a child by him, is less than half her hubby’s age. That has to be the principal attraction because I can’t detect any obvious others. She is certainly a strong-willed young woman, who makes most eco-zealots sound mild by comparison.

Ever since Mr Johnson got down to the business of impregnating Carrie, his own views on ‘our planet’ took a noticeable turn in that direction. By itself, there is nothing unusual or pernicious about that. Women often defy St Paul by changing their husbands’ opinions.

The trouble was that Johnson wasn’t any old husband. He was Her Majesty’s Prime Minister, and he had the power to convert his – or rather Carrie’s – opinions into policy.

Thus it was under his stewardship that the government set the ruinous and, worse still, unrealistic 2030 deadline for stopping the sale of new IC vehicles. Wind farms also boomed during his premiership, something he hadn’t passionately advocated BC (Before Carrie).

This is a serious matter. We are supposed to be a democracy, meaning we can only be governed by elected officials and those they appoint. Even the monarch has no executive power to affect policy. Carrie apparently did, and she was neither elected, nor appointed, nor in the line of succession.

The issue has constitutional ramifications, but rather than mulling over those, I wonder who wears the trousers in that family. Who has the Johnson?

There you have it: a man who cries easily, suffers from a deficit of logic and is told by his wife what to think, say and do in matters of the state. Show me a man like that and I’ll show you a woman in the making.

Oh well, nothing wrong with that, now Mr Johnson is a private subject of His Majesty.