So to get this clear: death threats towards the admin are not okay, and that one decision alone doesn't make him a TERF. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt here, and assume that those things really did happen, even though I've seen none of them.

But, with that said: here's this very curious pattern again, where a supposed ally is called out on a decision they've made that harms the marginalized group they're supposedly an ally to.

And instead of engaging with that, listening, and correcting course - they just complain about the criticism, and take some kind of drastic measure (in this case, shutting down the instance).

And suddenly, the entire focus of the conversation shifts to "oh no how horrible, I'm sorry that you had to do that" towards the admin, and away from the thing that the admin was criticized for. Which they never actually properly engaged with.

And when you call out "hey uh, you never did do anything about that problematic thing", that will get cut down by other "allies" who argue that "this is not the right time to bring that up".

Suddenly, the "ally" who did the harmful thing is centered in the conversation. Instead of the marginalized folks that the harm is being done to.

It's a curious pattern, and it's not the first time I've seen it happen.