An outsider gets attention that an insider probably wouldn't, merely for being "intrusive." There are people writing far more intelligently about this issue who - well, I wouldn't call them "obscure," but it's just business as usual for them. Progress is being made by the vanguard. You can probably think of a few. They focus on exploring their ideas rather than on producing link bait, so they're not as popular, but they are out there.
Frankly, I wouldn't expect someone who fits into "gamer culture" to make something noticeably more intelligent. It would probably have fewer outright factual errors, but still fail to draw a conclusion from them that's more than puddle-deep. This is because games have no established tradition of criticism, no language or common idioms with which to evaluate games more deeply. Remember that we are talking about art, not merely the hobby of consuming it. (Progress is also happening here, but it will probably never filter through to the hobbyists or to the general public. This is okay.)
It's necessary first to establish at least one passable theory of criticism. With one of those, it will be possible to communicate complex ideas about games farther than any single insular community. Then you can use that theory to examine games' treatment of gender issues. If you don't have a way to apply these ideas to the medium of games, the best you can do is analyze them using tools developed for looking at books or films or TV commercials or whatever, which are no more suitable for games than they are for each other. That in turn means relying on the audience to fill in the gaps based on their own knowledge of feminism, which might work for the readers of a feminist blog but not for players of video games. There are many whose knowledge of feminism begins and ends with "a woman is scolding me for something," so right there they're already taking it in the most personal and useless manner possible.
(If you're taking "the Internet" in aggregate, though, you will be disappointed; rather than tracking any realistic measure of progress, you're in effect measuring a cross-section of Kotaku commenters, a self-selected demographic; first take the people dumb enough to read Kotaku, and then from among those take those who are dumb enough (or frequent enough readers) not to realize that commenting on Kotaku articles is useless, and you should see why you're not getting representative data.)