While it's silly, it's a type of logic jump that functionally everyone engages in. Humans at their core are approximation machines, so the concept of "if [element] then [category]" is highly attractive. It's most commonly visual (in gaming: anime visuals = Japanese trash, colourful = for kids, greys/browns = gritty, realistic = unimaginative, etc), but it can extend to almost anything, including politics. On the extreme end of that, games with female leads get defaulted to being "SJW/feminist rubbish", and stuff that doesn't actively fight against traditional character archetypes is "sexist/problematic". I find it hard to refer to any specific one as the "most abused", because i see them all far more often than i can even bother to keep track of (and that's just in gaming; racist, cuck, nazi, pussy, etc, all get thrown around even more in general political discussions).
There's nothing inherently wrong with those initial approximations, but they usually need to be expanded upon. Even the most loving people will sometimes make really hateful or dumb initial assumptions about stuff, but it's their ability to quickly adapt that thought that makes them loving. If you either skip that second step, or allow personal biases to negatively warp the logic that's used in that expansion, you end up with silliness like needing assurance that a game isn't "[category]" because it contains a thing very vaguely associated with another thing that you sometimes don't like.
I do think it's at least worth noting though that the rise of this specific categorising is in large part reactionary. Gaming has been somewhat relentlessly attacked by some circles over the last few years, and the most extreme (and by extension often loud) portions of those circles haven't been shy in expressing their desire to effectively burn the whole thing down and force the ashes to adhere to their own world view. While much of the criticism levied against gaming is worthy of discussion, having your hobby (and often you as a person who enjoys it) consistently attacked can make you very cynical of anything that even slightly fits into the mould your 'opposition' want to force on you. Many of these people are going to make silly logic jumps no matter what (such as the old "games are for boys"), but the current political climate has funnelled those approximations towards what we frequently see now. It doesn't excuse it, but it's important to understand how we end up at each of these assumption trends.
Anyway, fun side fact: Our ability to rapidly approximate reality is what's making it so difficult to create a human AI. Even a basic smartphone can easily outperform a human in linear computation, but the combined power of every computer in the world couldn't match a 1 child's ability to approximate their environment. Once they're able to do both, i wonder if they'll make threads asking if a game panders to bio-humans :p
