I’m seeing a lot of this kind of taxonomical argument relying on material being removed, but it’s not convincing. A taxonomical argument that relies on commonly accepted definitions, but does not include commonly accepted examples, is logically flawed.
It’s normal, accepted usage to describe your anus and so forth as holes, despite no material having been removed.
Similarly, it’s normal to describe Cheerios as having holes in the middle, or bagels as having holes in the middle, or a pool noodle as having a hole through it, or any number of similar things that are formed without any material being removed. It extends to the metaphysical, in fact; one can have a hole in their logic, for instance, without the implications that their logic must once have contained this item, until it was somehow removed.
A hole is an entirely contained negative space; I don’t think it requires anything to have been removed.