The aim is to reduce the number of users of the software who are uncomfortable with those who are gay, trans, and/or anticolonial, probably because dealing with such people is a heavier burden than the other kind.
How would a you even know whether a user was uncomfortable with any of those things? Why would someone with a particular political stance be a heavier burden on maintainers? How would you even know how someone felt - if someone reports a bug it is highly unlikely they are going to add something like "I am uncomfortable with gays" are they? Nor is it going to be in the comments in contributed code. It sounds more like that the maintainers are uncomfortable with people who are not like themselves.
You seem to be drastically overcomplicating this. They are asking people who are uncomfortable with it to not use it. The people who are uncomfortable with it are the ones deciding, nothing at all in there implies that they are deciding who is uncomfortable.
> Dude who came up with the term: "The core of what I set out to criticize is just the notion that any random patient stranger should feel entitled to as much of someone's attention as they want."
I don't see how that's related to the topic or issue being discussed though. If you're a maintainer you decide when to shut down a discussion. Someone is annoying/creepy/difficult and wants a feature? Let them fork it, eod. Every escalation afterwards is basically just trolling or harassment.
