The "clickbait" aspect is the inaccuracy of calling out "the site" rather than "the writing", which there is a distinction between.
For one, we may think of GameFAQs as the last great bastion of text guides on the Internet, but back in "the day", it was one of dozens of available text-based sources. Game Winners, Cheat Planet, CheatCC, Game Advice, Console Domain, Happy Puppy, Cheat Stop and so on. GameFAQs didn't even invent the concept. All of these sites were active in the late 90's/early 2000's. The era that the writer speaks of was a mire of different sources.
Naming the site in the title as the "source" belies that a finger could be pointed in one direction, at the owners, operators, and management. Calling out the writing, and by extent, the community, is a much muddier adversary and harder to sell an article on. GameFAQs as a site never promoted or encouraged, let alone created, the culture of sexism in gaming.
What the writer of the article is doing is taking a trip down memory lane and realizing the signs were there back then, and that those signs are etched into the record of cringe because those guides will remain on the Internet as they are until the end of the site, and.... well duh, I guess.
It's rough to find evidence of a time when we were younger and stupider but that's history and the importance of preserving it.
He found, preserved in amber, an ancient symptom of a current disease, a disease which became a pandemic in summer of 2014, so to say "hey look over here at this vector" rings hollow when we're long into having mapped out the genome of the fuckery that is the gamer community.
Speaking of which, why not IGN? Weren't they CheatCC at one point?