Cervical Cancer Fund Suggests Calling Vaginas ‘Bonus Holes’ to Avoid Offending Trans People

(Corine Gatti, Headline USA) A woke United Kingdom-based cervical cancer trust sparked controversy by referring to vaginas as “bonus holes” in their makeshift glossary of trans terms. 

The charity in question was Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust, which suggested the language in 2020 for biological females. But the aggressive definitions to pacify trans people recently went viral on Twitter, creating a firestorm when the term “bonus hole” was used as an alternative word for vagina. The glossary became more absurd, referring to the “front hole” as another alternative word for vagina, the Gateway Pundit reported.

Naturally, that wasn’t enough for the organization. Readers were chastised to check which words transgender people would prefer, as they might get offended.

“Remember, everyone, makes mistakes from time to time,” the trust charged. “It’s important that you acknowledge them, correct yourself, learn from them, and move on. Dwelling on mistakes could make the person you are talking to feel more uncomfortable.” 

The archived version of the glossary was published with the LGBT Foundation, a charity that campaigns for LGBT rights. Not everyone accepted the term “bonus hole” as the definition made the rounds on Twitter, and users denounced the fund for demeaning women.

“Females really went from ‘women’ to ‘birthing people’ to ‘bonus holes’ in the span of 5 years,” Tom Pappert, editor-in-chief of Valiant News, tweeted. 

“Cervix owners was bad enough. Now they are re-wording parts of women’s bodies to sound like perks at mini-golf?” Melissa Chen, contributing editor at The Spectator, posted.

Evolutionary biologist Heather Heying posted on Twitter and called the glossary “Delusional.”

The backlash mirrored criticism that Johns Hopkins received after it published it a glossary of LGBT identities and terms, which redefined the term “lesbian” by excluding any reference to “women”.

The university was compelled to revise its misguided guidance, which was blasted from all points of the political and social spectrum, with one critic calling it “the homophobic statement of the decade.”