It's fine, I'm happy to have had this discussion. :)

When one person's opinion is that your existence is wrong

This definitely applies in the example relating to the trans-activists and their opposition, not so much in Gamergate due to the incredible size differences. So far, people in gg seem to be able to tolerate eachothers' existance just fine, and keep the majority of their non-gg related politics out of gamergate itself - Which makes those values of theirs irrelevant to GG.

GG attracts a lot of gross people

As does the organized opposition, as does the world of politics, as does feminism, as does mens rights activism, as does religion. And on what do you base that GG has a larger percentage of shitty people when compared to the online world as a whole? This would be required for 'many shitty people' to be valid as an argument, yet what little statistics there are seem to indicate GG isn't all that hostile. It's not bulletproof evidence of anything, but it's the only somewhat valid analysis we have.

Composition of a group is only significant to me when it's either; *The crux of the groups' argument (#NYS) *Statistically deviant from the norm (Representation of ideology, gender & race) *Arguing against other 'types' of people. (Racist, radical gender & religious bigotry) *Follows statistical deviance from the norm in 'bad' behavior.

In Gamergate, I see none of these issues being particularly pressing, which puts the composition problem at rest for me.

Both groups sharing the common interest means that they both will work for the cause anyway

Numbers issue. They might work for the cause, but they'll be less effective. And considering the root issues, we need all the effectiveness we can get short of sacrificing legality and ethical action.

It's a matter of safety at some point

Fair enough, if you feel that way. I don't really see why I'd feel unsafe by contributing to a consumers activist initiative on the internet, simply because there might be consumers among the initiative who are distasteful, spiteful or absolutely reprehensible. I'll concede there's a risk of being punished, hacked and/or doxed because of it, but personally that's a risk I'm willing to take to keep the gaming industry a meritocracy.

I do think I see your point - And I personally disagree with you, but I won't begrudge you your opinion - I apologize if this has gotten a bit annoying.