Whoa! Hands up anybody here who actually knows anything about social science, and how that pertains to identity construction? As someone with a degree in this stuff, it's fairly interesting, and there's nothing more interesting than actually taking a look at threads like this and watching identity construction take place.
There won't be any ditching of labels any time soon - do you know why? Because labels are incredibly useful. What do you call thing you have you drink in? What is your PC monitor currently resting oh? What are you sitting on? What colour is your hair? All of these things are labels - every name is a label, and the purpose of giving things names is so that we can talk to them and refer to them without having to clumsily repeat the description of what we mean every time we mention something.
The whole of human language exists because of names and labels. Because of this, anything that exists will have a name or a label. The label for someone who enjoys playing games is a gamer. That's all there is to it. You have a group of people who enjoy playing games that needed a name, and the term gamer was created. It doesn't matter if you petition to get rid of it - all that does is force society to create a new label because the old one isn't allowed any more. This is what people dislike about being "politically correct" - it's the fact that they can't call someone something they used to call you because it has now been deemed offensive, and instead are forced to use a new term.
The problem is that it is not the terms that are offensive. Words, on their own, aren't offensive. It's how they are used and the context in which they are used. Any word can be turned into an insult simply be continued use in a derogatory manner, even after they've been changed. Meanwhile, words typically considered as insults are not insulting when used in an appropriate context, such as when used jokingly between friends.
However, what often happens is that as terms get used, they often get used in a certain context, or combined with other words, and the words get tainted. They start picking up implied definitions that tarnish the definition - for example, there's often a consideration that to be considered a gamer you need to be "hard-core" because of the common phrase "hard-core gamer" even though gamer itself is independent of this.
At what point do people become gamers? The ultimate answer is when they say they do - when they self-identify as a gamer, which comes along with self-identifying as someone who enjoys playing games. This is because if the nature of identity construction - we typically take a very binary approach to identities, with a simplistic us or them mindset, which may or may not be antagonistic in nature.
When someone identifies with a group, such as being a gamer, they identify with other gamers, and view other people identifying as gamers as part of 'us' - and will share traits, markings, and so forth to build a community. Some of this is quite natural, especially when it comes to identities based on hobbies and activities. For example, if I am a gamer and I'm playing games, and someone else is a gamer and they are playing games, then they are both doing the same thing - playing games. Chances are there will be other game-related traits in common, such as liking the same games, keeping up with the same game related sites, commenting on the Escapist forums, and so forth. These are all optional, but the chance is there, and the more correlation, the stronger the identity. As the group itself becomes bigger, there's more opportunity for correlation, even if the actual activities become more diverse, especially in a hobby as open as gaming - and as more of these occur, you get sub-identities forming, maybe based along the genre of games played or the type of console, and so on.
Self-identification isn't always so natural and uncontrolled, but can also be directed. People can choose to become part of an identity they desire, in which case they will try to find what the strongest correlations are, and seek to emulate them. These strongest correlations are often what form the basis of stereotypes - easy to remember ideas and concepts which provide a foundation for what something is. Everything else is layered on top or tweaked, so it is rare that a stereotype is the whole picture for any individual.
Like names and labels, stereotypes themselves are not offensive, but the context in which they are used can be. It is often convenient to limit thinking to stereotypes and forget about the fact they rarely represent the complete individual. It is also possible to skew the ideas or presentations within a stereotype, to meet the aims of people misrepresenting the stereotype. One of the main reasons for doing this is because it's easy to dehumanise people with stereotypes - and that makes it easier to ignore, disrespect, hate, or even kill them without thinking too much about it.
I'm a gamer, and it's something I am proud of. It's something that has been a big part of my life. There may be a lot of negative perceptions about gamers, but I can guarantee that they've got it wrong. It seems like the media still wants to demonise gaming in every form, yet games originally evolved as, and continue to be, one of the most effective learning tools humanity has available to it. Gamers are superior to equivalent non-gamers in terms of skills and abilities because of gaming. Admittedly there has been a lot of dumbing down of games, both to cater for a more casual audience, and because the idea that games can only be for entertainment value seems to have been top priority in an industry pumping out committee-based designs catering to the more base instincts of human nature, but even so, gaming can and will remain important in society.
