‘Bonus hole’

[bblackmirror]

So I can’t believe this is real but it seems to be.
What do we make of Jo’s cervical trust a cancer charity who has an LGBT inclusive language page on their website suggesting another word for a vagina is a bonus
hole!!

Absolutely awful.

@Helleofabore international womend day?!!
In Ireland this year a trans "woman" was invited to address the Irish government to speak about women's plight. Like wtf, it's horrific.. The one day we get a year & it has the centre around men.

https://gript.ie/smash-woman-activist-to-address-dail-womans-day-event/

This "woman" also previously wanted to smash women out of existence.

'Bonus hole'.

Worst fucking lottery draw ever.

I remember watching a surgery programme (maybe Botched?) where both doctors were immediately uncomfortable when someone started pouting, being inappropriate and wiggling their breasts about in a suggestive manner. They were told to stop in no uncertain terms.

I have no doubt that a lot of HCPs would be uncomfortable using terminology like bonus hole.

Quiet.

Can you imagine actually having to say that phrase?

I'm actually quite angry.

Sorry Arcane meant to say quite! Not telling you to pipe down

🙂 no worries langship

For the people who are prepared to defend this, is there no insult too crude and base for women, in your opinion? Are there no depths to which we can't sink?

Of all the many repellent things I read on here daily, this truly is one of the worst. I can’t quite believe things have really come to this.

In the early '80s, a hospital nurse giving my male friend a bed bath when his leg was in traction after a car crash said, "Now I'm just going to wash your front botty".

In all honesty, the crudeness of the insult is deliberate. It's a deliberate slur on women, using hypothetical transmen as a shield to hide behind.

'We get to call you 'bonus holes' because these special transmen say they have to use that word'.

I've yet to hear any actual transmen defend it. The references quoted lead to people like Edward Lord and W P Bouman.

Dylan has probably got that registered, so they'll need to add "Barbie pouch©"...

What they are concerned with is making sure women (all women, including trans men) receive treatment and compassionate care.

I agree that guidelines for professionals needs to be comprehensive and have a section that covers working with women who identify as trans or non-binary, written with the involvement of those that have experience working with and having heard the voices of a range of transmen, and non-binary folk with female biology. It would be helpful if the methodology for producing the guidelines was transparent too. Professional guidelines often include understanding jargon used by different sections of the target audience so that itself is not unreasonable, even if others might find that language abhorrent. Whether or not the professionals should repeat jargon words back to the patient, or show that they understand them and respect the patient, while still using the medical words to explain the situation to the patient, is a matter for experienced professionals in the field to discuss and determine.

However, importantly, this charity is NOT making sure ALL women receive treatment and compassionate care from the first point of contact, because their general aimed-at-all-women posters and leaflets are not using the appropriate language for the majority of their target audience, which can cause rejection of the message or confusion about whether the message is for them, and hence non-engagement which is the opposite of the goal. It is completely possible to use the usual and scientific words for women and girls (and the relevant body parts in the detailed information) in a clear and broadly non-offensive way, while still also explaining that the charity is committed to supporting ALL women including those with different culturally- or gender-identity-based needs, and that further tailored information is available on the website or by phoning 020-whatever. Jo's Trust and all the other organisations that can't grasp this need to try MUCH harder, for the good of ALL women.

When did we as a society allow such terms to be normalised in the name of inclusion?

When is society going to insist they the penis be called a ‘wank stick’ to accommodate those people. No. This narrative that minorities who cannot cope with the medical terms for their body should be fully accommodated and their terms enforced as ‘accepted’ has to be pushed back on.

This divergence of terminology is creating ambiguity and it is harmful.

tbh and on reflection i am going to stop caring.
But i will also not donate money to organisations that don't stop with this shit

If transwomen need a testicular check, are their testicles referred to as "bonus balls" ?

Also do they resort to going to male clinics or still insist on using womens health facilities?

“bonus balls”!!! 😂
You win the thread, Moonandstarzz!

It took women bloody DECADES to get medics to stop using stupid misogynist and infantile terms for their bodies like 'front bottoms' and now here are males and their very stupid women enablers busy getting it all back in fashion again.

Any lingering time or respect I had for this agenda and belief system is gone because there is zero reciprocation, every inch of indulgence given results in a snatched five miles. So it can fuck off to the far side of fuck and then fuck off some more.

It is bad enough that in one survey less than half the women surveyed actually knew they had a cervix.

many women have issues around language (due to ability to understand English or learning difficulties or anything else) it is VITAL for the language used to reflect that.

Add informal translators (e.g. family, sometimes children) to the mix and you have a perfect storm for immigrant women not coming for smear tests because they didn't understand that they even needed them.

A child would see a poster that says "women need smear tests" and realise that that means Mum needs one. A child wouldn't realise that "cervix haver" means Mum.

Exactly vito - words are important.

And the point of all this ridiculous linguistic gymnastics?

To enable less than 1% of the population to pretend the reality of their sex can be disappeared.

Where's the consistence in:

1. A man can have a vagina because sex has nothing to do with gender.
2. It's essential you don't use the word "vagina" to a transman because it will upset them.

I am a native English speaker and I can easily understand most health related posters and information. However, I would never, never guess, if I saw public health information about a bonus hole, that they were talking about women or about vaginas.

Part of why "no debate" was pushed was stop us from pointing out glaring contradictions like these.

My understanding is that the intent is not to put this kind of "bonus hole" language on "first contact" materials like waiting room posters.

My concern is that it is part of a wider attempt to erase "women" and "female" from medical terminology, putting women and girls at risk. The "first contact" impact of this is "cervix haver" instead of "woman", and that risks English non-native speakers and English non-speakers.