ARBCOM may not have the remit to instruct Signpost to the finer details of its mission, but if you put out a circular, which reaches all doorsteps through the watchlist whether it is read or not, just like if you put out a bot, edit templates, or other miscellaneous form of community wide, agenda, you must not only accept a degree of reactionary and constructive criticisms, but anticipate and be responsible for criticisms, as well as you might be responsible for praise and approval. This is a balanced and reasonable approach, whether your tools be shovels and spades, or insight and humour.
Pronoun controversy today, is purely about gender related issues.
If you want to circulate an argument in any form, to every watchlist throughout the whole community, intending to provoke thought and reaction, you must bear the largest portion of responsibility for the thoughts and reactions you receive, unless you intend to create a community wide farce.
Censorship is a taboo word on Wikipedia. Even Jimbo Wales responded, in relation to this incident, "In my view, the term 'censorship' is only applicable when we are discussing governmental actions or actions resulting from some threat of the use of physical force. In terms of discussing matters of our own community's editorial judgment we should use the term 'editorial judgment'."
Freedom from oppression in this world is based on restriction. The most obvious, you can't have slaves. But in the modern day, equality measures go to the core of every community.
Wikipedia is not censored in the sense that, there is no information that we will not report here on this site. There is no form of information that Wikipedia will not at least report, in reasonable detail.
In extension to freedom of expression, Wikipedia does permit and promote friendly freedom of expression in user space, and somewhat tolerates it in discussion spaces. At the deepest core, Wikipedia has always rejected freedom of speech as anything to do with the mission, except where it is relevant to debates on content.
At the deepest core, the Wikipedian value is to approach all forms of interaction in a respectful, not formal or even sombre, but otherwise respectful, manner. That is the only fair way to promote a balanced community.
Without any basis of respect, individuals are marginalised routinely just for being unusual, or not being very impressive, and imbalance ultimately affects content. The balance required is not simply proportional representation, but proportional evaluation.
The only point evaluating something through an imbalanced perspective is the deceptive appearance of balance. In oppressed societies, rules are passed to resemble freedom and equality, and to reason that the oppression itself is actually a form of balance. Such is a way to claim validation in-house, and easily deflect criticisms.