Women’s rights advocates have voiced their strong disapproval following a charity’s suggestion that the term ‘vagina’ should be replaced with ‘bonus hole’ in an effort to be more inclusive towards non-binary individuals and trans men.
The controversial language guide has been criticized by advocates as ‘misogynistic’ and ‘utterly dehumanising’, as seen in a campaign led by female rights defenders.
Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust, the charity behind the contentious terminology, has sought to clarify that the recommended language is not intended for universal application but as a means to foster inclusivity for trans men and non-binary individuals.
Despite the explanation, the term ‘bonus hole’, said to be conceived in partnership with expert groups servicing the LGBT community, has largely been met with denunciation. The language guide also includes the term ‘front hole’ as another alternative to the word ‘vagina’.
The guide, titled ‘Language to use when supporting trans men and/or non-binary people’, has found staunch critics among conservative groups.
Caroline Ffiske, the founder of Conservatives for Women, shared her views with MailOnline: “The gender movement seems actively to want to encourage body disassociation and hatred, in other words to actively create more confused young people alienated from their own physicality and their own sex…”
“To my mind it is grooming: create the unease, the disassociation, the alienation, and then when you have done that, you step in with euphoric rhetoric about ‘trans joy’,” she said.
“Of course those doing this will not be around to pick up the pieces when young bodies are irreversibly damaged and young lives destroyed,” she continued. “Is there a mechanism whereby these charities promoting harm could be struck off?”
The LGBT Foundation is mentioned as a contributing body in the creation of the glossary, which also notes that using incorrect terms can cause emotional distress to individuals who don’t identify with them.
Kellie-Jay Keen, founder of Standing for Women, expressed strong disapproval of the language guide, referring to it as ‘an erasure of female language’. She stated, “The whole thing is loathsome but bonus hole and front hole are so misogynist…”
“If a woman is so triggered by the word vagina I should imagine she need serious psychiatric help rather than the world bend to her never ending list of irrational demands,” she said.
“You would think that charities focused on cervical cancer would have better things to do than erase female language. Still, it’s better than the Canadian cervical charity who devoted a whole section for men with cervical cancer,” she continued.
In an attempt to mitigate the controversy, Jo’s Trust clarified the purpose behind publishing the guide.
A spokesperson shared with MailOnline: “The page includes a glossary of terms they may hear from their patients and was developed with expert organisations who work with the LGBT community…”
“Our mission at Jo’s is to prevent as many cervical cancers as possible, and a big part of that is increasing uptake of cervical screening… some trans men and / or non-binary people have cervixes and to reduce as many cervical cancers as possible it is important that we also provide information for this group and the health professionals who support them.”
It appears the LGTBQ+ advocates are attempting to flat out erase women and their body parts altogether. At what point do women collectively say enough?
