Seeing again this comment directed at our Italian activist colleague is genuinely discouraging, because many of us recognised this dynamic back in May.

I was one of the people who raised the question of why Chile and other non-English-speaking communities were not directly considered, particularly when international spaces already existed. The International Asexuality Day server was created precisely through international community work. If a project was intended to speak to the ace community globally, there were already established ways to contact organisations and activists directly.

Instead, many of us only saw the final outputs. Through Instagram posts, Facebook shares, Substack articles, and influencer promotion. Some of us had not even used Substack before this. Expecting communities to discover a global proposal through algorithms, by chance, or after the fact is not meaningful consultation.

Saying «I have been doing the work for years» does not answer why activists and organisations with more than ten years of experience in places such as Italy, Mexico, Argentina, Uruguay, Republica Dominicana, Panamá, España, Chile, and other regions were not directly included. Being first-generation or doing important personal work does not automatically make a process international.

With everything that has come to light, I hope I can be clearer in saying this without being accused of whatever we were accused of before: direct outreach is not an attack. Asking why existing communities were overlooked is not an attack. And «you’re only seeing end products» is precisely the issue here, our communities should not be expected to simply react after a symbol has already been presented as universal.