I have always understood the phrase ____-gate to refer to a controversy or conflict. For example, deflate-gate was the hubbub around whether the Patriots intentionally deflated balls during the AFC Championship. The original, Watergate, was a scandal under the Nixon administration.
However, I hear references to people being pro-gamergate or anti-gamergate. This seems to imply that gamergate is not a description of a controversy or conflict, but rather, of only one side of some conflict.
Under my understanding, it wouldn't make sense to call somebody pro-watergate, or anti-watergate. You'd have to say pro-Nixon or anti-Nixon.
Is gamergate used in a non-standard way as compared to other -gates? If so, how did this come about?
Edit: Twice now, I've been presented with a banner saying "This question may already have an answer here: Why do we use the suffix “‑gate” when referring to a scandal? [closed] 3 answers" It gives me an option: "No, my question is different. I will edit to explain how." So, I'm editing to explain how my question is different.
I am not asking why we use the suffix "-gate" when referring to a scandal. I give the etymology of that use in my question, so there is no way you could construe my question as asking why we use the suffix "-gate" when referring to a scandal. I'm asking: given that we use the suffix "-gate" when referring to a scandal, is the use of terms like "pro-gamergate" non-standard as compared to previous uses? The answerer and a few commenters got exactly what I was asking. This question generated an answer different than the type of answer the other "duplicate" answer generated. Those other questions were not sufficient to address this novel sense of the "-gate" suffix.