It morphed into that so quickly because the critique in the articles was nuanced, which means that it's easy to twist into something very different from what it was intended to be. Notice how pretty much every one of these articles doesn't refer to "gamers" in the title, but rather " 'gamers' " -- it puts the word in scare-quotes specifically because they aren't discussing gamers, the category of people, but rather "gamers," the term which is being presented as a concrete measure of identity. The point is that the concept of "gamers," or even moreso "real gamers," was an exclusionary and increasingly inaccurate model, and these events show that it's past its breaking point.
If there were actually an epidemic of articles claiming that all people who are active in the gaming hobby are virginal misogynists with bad hair, I'd certainly object to that, but that's not really what's been going on. Pretty much every one of those articles is written by someone who is very much, by both vocation and avocation, a gamer, or at least a person who is heavily engaged with games and gaming. These are internal critiques by people who are frustrated by the choice between tacitly supporting brutal misogyny and disassociating themselves from their hobby. The fact that so many people have perceived them as external speaks to the original issue -- the fact that these critiques were made by women has led them to be widely viewed as coming from outside, even if the people making them are dyed-in-the-wool members of the community.
