Doesn't sound right to me. A normal clause of that form would look like "she/her" and indicate that the pronoun is "she" as the subject of a clause and "her" otherwise.
This would indicate that maia wants to be referred to as "it" as the subject of a clause and "she" otherwise.
Both preferred multiple alternatives for nominative case (“it/she”) and preferred single alternatives for nominative and accusative case (“she/her”) are commonly used. When at least one of the pronouns involved are traditional pronouns rather than neopronouns this is pretty clear as to which is being used (though unless they are both standard pronouns, its ambiguous as to the accusative case to use with the neopronoun, but of course it indicates that the standard pronoun and its corresponding accusative form are acceptable, so that’s not really a problem), though if they are both neopronouns it might be ambiguous in theory (in practice, if they are both neopronouns, its always the second nominative/accusative form, not the multiple alterantives form.) Occasionally, you’ll find neopronouns presented in a triplet where the third is possessive case (which really should always be the case with neopronouns, since otherwise you’re left to conjure up your own possessive if one is needed.)
Well, thank you for explaining. I have complete respect for anyone's choices in this area but I'll leave the opinion on this particular choice to myself.
Edit: looking at other comments, it seems like it might not be the correct explanation after all?
As someone else noted, GP is just misunderstanding a frankly confusing subject. There are essentially two common ways for people to specify their pronouns.
Some people desire a single set of pronouns, and indicate this using the nominative/accusative pair (she/her, they/them, ze/zer).
Other people accept either of two different sets of pronouns, and indicate this preference using the two nominative forms separated by a slash (she/they, they/he, and apparently, it/she).
