Some people are genuinely trying to make other people feel included. Some people just do it because of social pressure. One way or another this does feel like a force for the better.
This is virtue signaling - a no cost action meant to make you feel like you are helping people without actually helping people.
No, it's simply a hint that your message might be better received if you change your word usage to something which is more current, more inclusive, or less triggering. For example, in the U.S. the word "master" might be triggering, given that black people were enslaved, tortured, and murdered for hundreds of years in this country. I'm OK to avoid it. If you want to use it, you can ignore the squiggle, but none of this has anything to do with "virtue signaling".
Maybe you could use friendlier words like "not free" or "hurt"?
If a word like "landlord" can be "triggering" then we can't even discuss actual historical events like slavery or torture, etc (one would at least presume torture to be more triggering than landlord).
Before a few years ago, I seriously doubt that innocuous uses of the word "master" were triggering to anyone beyond a very small group of political activists. It's a common word that is used in many contexts completely unrelated to slavery. Nobody with their head soundly on their shoulders was triggered when they heard phrases like "master chef," "master bedroom" or "master's degree."
There's a difference between avoiding language that actually does have strongly negative or prejudicial associations and actively seeking out reasons to be upset about completely innocuous common phrases. There are words that really do become polluted (like "Führer" in German, which used to be a normal word for "leader," but which now is strongly associated with a certain someone), but there are also words that are completely harmless that people work to try to make an issue out of for ideological reasons (e.g., "whitelist").
There's a certain strain of politics in the US which does actively seek out and attempt to remove "problematic" language. You may agree with that politics. But a lot of people (myself included) don't think that "problematizing" innocuous phrases like "master chef" is actually helping anyone, and rather see it as a form of bullying.
Call me suspicious, but I’m not convinced that the arguments extending the debate to all use of the word master are entirely made in good faith. In fact, it seems a lot like controversy for controversies sake and I can’t help but wonder if some troll isn’t out there fanning the flames.
Hold up, what's wrong with "brown bag" now?
I mean, how many times has this happened to anyone, let alone the individual in question?
I don't call Japanese customers Japs even though that used to be a valid English term because it is now widely considered offensive. These are terms that some groups find offensive and more may find offensive in the future. It makes sense to stay ahead of the game and not cause offense if it costs me nothing to do it, and it makes sense for Google to help people who are trying not to offend people do so easily.
I told said boss exactly how many times the complainant should be fired but needless to say, their identity was protected and nothing happened. If you believe that can't happen you're not really aware of how these people think. The next step is an admin/site-level setting that allows "uninclusive" language to force-disable sharing. You wait and see.
If this was implicit in your presentation, then I think I can see why you were reported to HR.
But, look, maybe you didn't deserve to be reported. Anyone can report anything to HR.
Obviously, if you're teaching people how to eliminate bias in an interview process then people who believe that absence of pro-female bias is "sexism" will consider it implicitly sexist, regardless of intent. But that's a nonsensical inversion of basic English and morality. People who report others to HR for that would be fired in any competent company (this one wasn't).