I agree with Jaap. Replace "sex" with "impose personal/community moral views upon" and he
expresses my view of what is occurring adequately.
Look, Nobody is forcing any moral views on anybody.
What morall judgement is implied by a ban? I think there is none at all, a ban is simply that, and all it means is that we'd rather go about working on our encyclopedia project without the kind of "help" Helga is currently equipped to give.
Is it Helga's natural right to be included in the team which develops a free encyclopedia? I don't think so. We are doing something worth doing, and if Helga is making it harder to do that we don't need to feel bad about not including her in the wikipedia team.
Do you expect that the red cross is forcing their views on others when they fail to accept any volinteers who only want to handle blood, and who are infected with a life-threatening disease. Or to make the example less extreeme, the Red Cross is unlikely to an clumsy person to cary around expencive containers of medication. My point is that the Red Cross, and like most volenteer groups, isn't under the impression that they are required to let a volenteer do anything she wants, even if the labor of that volenteer is counterproductive. So can you explain to me why a free encyclopedia project should be be any different?