I added that bit of snark because a big part of this seems to have been a new (pending) Code of Conduct that apparently could be read as "you're not allowed to

I added that bit of snark because a big part of this seems to have been a new (pending) Code of Conduct that apparently could be read as "you're not allowed to use phrasing that would normally be recognized as gender-neutral, you must use individuals' preferred pronouns." I know I'd question that if it meant that (while moderating) I was going to have to go look into what someone's gender pronoun preferences were lest I be accused of violating the CoC. I haven't read the leaked TL (Teachers' Lounge?) chat transcripts and the whole thing has blown up into a massive drama such that reading all the summaries and resignations and objections and whatnot isn't realistic for me, but I suspect that questions along the lines of "Can I just do this?" were interpreted as challenging the whole new CoC and someone felt like they were being disrespected. The (apparent) summary dismissal outside all existing policies for dismissing moderators would fit with it being a knee-jerk reaction followed by a refusal to back down after a mistake. Frankly if Monica C hadn't asked for clarification but had simply continued writing in such a way as to avoid using any pronouns this would never have blown up, but I think the question was taken as questioning authority. Edit: As for the neutral pronoun, yes, more than 20 years ago as part of a community focused around a Usenet group that also had regular social get-togethers all over the country. IIRC, the term(s) in use were zie/zir. Edit2: And having just done a bit of searching: No, it wasn't alt.polyamory or any related groups, though there might have been overlap in memberships.