Found it! Also, I have changed my name to prevent misunderstandings about pronunciation.

By the way, my amateur math analysis of opinion dynamics is shaping up in a way that I hadn't quite expected.  It arguably has some implications for how we as a moderating team should conduct ourselves.  I'd like to start that discussion in the next few days.

So, here's a link to my amateur math analysis that I was talking about:

https://asexualcommunityforums.com/forum/scientific-research/how-dangerous-is-a-laissez-faire-approach-toward-freedom-of-speech/

The preliminary findings are that to fight radicalization, a good moderating team should make a point of frequently sending the message that certain off-limits ideas are wrong, especially off-limits ideas in the political direction that the main group is leaning.

@Sepha @SkittyPryde, I want to hear your thoughts on how we as a team should conduct ourselves, and whether you think that my computer analysis from the past few days holds any weight.

Before i read it, I thought this reminded me of how societies become as intolerant as the most intolerant people they tolerate and after having read it, I still feel that way.

Edit: I'm favorable.

Does this mean we're banning communism and Kahanism?

Edit: Or are we just putting up some sort of warning when someone expresses such an opinion?

@sepha Sorry for the late response, was working on some other stuff.  Regarding banning communism (the economic theory) I don't immediately see it, but if you see an argument that I'm missing, please speak up. You and @SkittyPryde each have as much say as I do. Regarding banning the argument "we should always side with whoever's less privileged, and that's why communism is right", that makes more sense.

Another thing to think about is how to go about saying "you can't say that here."

A separate issue:  A lot of my social media is talking about the Dyke March banning Zionists and specifically listing anti-Zionism as one of their three main goals.  I feel like this merits a formal statement from us, and would like your input.  I can draft something tomorrow if no one else feels like putting in the work to draft something.

Also, it completely slipped my mind that International Asexuality Day is tomorrow.  I'll draft something later tonight.

Slight change of plans, I realize it's too late at night right now for me to write prose.  I'll do it tomorrow.

What do you think of this draft?

Hi, all,

As International Asexuality Day 2025 dawns upon us, let's take this moment to acknowledge the social progress that has been made, as well as the work still to be done on acceptance of asexuality. The most noticeable progress has been the increased awareness of asexuality. Perhaps the best indicator is the rising number of older adults who have only realized relatively recently that they are asexual, as the prospect of feeling sexual attraction to no one wasn't even a possibility they were considering until recently.

On the less optimistic side, we have to acknowledge the extent to which asexual romances are deligitimized. The prevalence of people stating that a romance without sexual activity is just a platonic friendship, or that sexual attraction is a necessary component of a healthy romance. This phenomenon even pervades the medical community, with many doctors and therapists refusing to acknowledge that a sexless romance can be intentional and healthy.

Over the next year, let's hope to see more improvement in these areas.

From the moderating team,

AspieAlly613

Sepha

SkittyPryde

(@Sepha @SkittyPryde please tell me what you think)

The draft works.

All right, I'll send it out.  It seems @SkittyPryde is taking a social media break.  (Sometimes we all need it.)

@Sepha @SkittyPryde do you think we should draft a symbolic response to this?

Dear Mrs. Rowling,

We took note of your classification of International Asexuality Day as “International Fake Oppression Day to everyone who wants complete strangers to know they don't fancy a shag.” You're certainly correct that whatever troubles we face pale in comparison to the oppression faced by other LGBTQIA+ groups. No governments are threatening any of us for abstinence, nor are they denying any of us medical services that would help us psychologically.

This does prompt the question “if asexuals aren't oppressed, why do we need to have an international asexuality day?” One answer is that it promotes visibility and awareness of the orientation. There are several reasons why visibility is significant. For example:

• Consider the situation “I've been dating my boyfriend for two months, and things are going well, but he doesn't want to go beyond kissing. Is something wrong?” In addition to the possibilities that perhaps he's religious, or perhaps he's just not ready for more intimate physical contact, there's also the possibility that he's asexual. (Note that this may be something he'd be discovering through the experience as well.). Knowing of this possibility will help the couple decide how to proceed.

• There's a difference between not wanting to have sex and never wanting to enter a romantic relationship. For asexuals who are not aromantic, it's important to know that this is a plausible life path and that they don't necessarily need to live a life of isolation or engage in unwanted sex.

• For most people, sexual attraction, romantic attraction, and sensual attraction tend to happen in unison. As such, much of our cultural discourse uses the terms interchangeably. However, for someone who feels sensual and romantic attraction but not sexual attraction, it's important to realize “other people (possibly including my partner) would feel things in this situation that I don't feel.”

We hope this clears up why International Asexuality Day is important despite its not pertaining to oppression.

Tell me what you think.

Here's my draft of the response to the Dyke March's antisemitic decisions:

The following two disturbing developments from the Dyke March have come to our attention:

• They've rewritten their three stated goals. One of the three now includes explicit opposition to Zionism.

• They have banned Zionists from participating in their marches.

Needles to say, we condemn these decisions and view it as a strong negative indication of the Dyke March's committee members' morals, or lack thereof.

Zionism is the belief in the right of Israel to exist and support for its continued existence. There are numerous slanderous false definitions of Zionism, and it is a severe moral failing not to examine those definitions. The simple justification for Zionism is the following:

• At the time of UN resolution 181, which called for the establishment of Israel, the decision was based on allotting political power to Jews and Arabs based on who was the majority in each region.

• The Jews who came to British Palestine (not to be conflated with the Arab state of Palestine which declared independence in 1988) did so legitimately and purchased their land, not stealing it.

Any attempt to deny the above is revisionist history, and to deny that the above are grounds for the formation of Israel would be to apply a gross double-standard against Israel. While we do not believe that the motivation for this double-standard is animosity towards Jews, instead animosity toward a Western culture gaining political power over land that was formerly under Muslim political power, this does not absolve the Dyke March of its double-standard. These decisions indicate that the Dyke March has embraced the evil and indefensible regressive ideology, which attempts to conflate disparity with injustice.

While we realize it is in the best interests of our community to support other LGBTQIA+ organizations, this does not obligate us to support all of their decisions. There are moral absolutes, and as we acknowledge, there is a mathematical theorem proving that regressive ideology is absolutely immoral.

@Sepha @SkittyPryde what do you think?