I may be wrong, but I could have sworn the original intention of the game was something like "the feminists/socialists have won" (paraphrasing) and they've since changed it.
This is just speculation, of course, but personally I think he was just "virtue signaling" to gamergate people, and it was never really about that in the first place.
Either that or it really radically changed, probably because he's not even the writer himself.
Because when you watch the trailer and/or read pieces of information that followed the trailer, it doesn't really matter if "feminists won", because this isn't really a dystopia where you have to fight the power and free the people from tyranny. The technological advances didn't create a terrible future, quite the opposite, it's really an utopia. From an objective standpoint, everyone's lifes was dramatically improved by what was achieved.
The struggles seem to be much more existential, about personal identity. What defines an individual when his individuality isn't really needed.
In the game's world, machines initially provided us with work, essentially freeing us to express our individuality instead of having to work to guarantee our basic needs, but as time passed, they even started to cover that as well. Machines are able to create works of art that basically render our efforts useless in the eyes of the general population, and what we consume has become the only major remaining way of expressing identity.
So, in that context, "feminism winning" only granted us a world where everything worked out perfectly, and the dreams of a technological utopia were actually achieved. The conflicts then are about the human condition, and how we can feel empty even in such a scenario.
There's also a plot about the main character being unable to interact with the augumentations due to some disability, I think, which brings another interesting discussion to the table.
The thing is, the government, or corporations, or whatever, weren't really incompetent in implementing this technology-driven world at all. The backstory doesn't seem to be "feminists won the cultural war and destroyed the world as a result", whoever is in charge did a way better job at this utopia thing than the vast majority of cyberpunk corporations/governments/whatever. It's a different, more personal take on "high tech, low life". It's not the literal low life of living in poverty in the middle of high technology, it's having a perfect material life, but that not meaning the end of personal struggles. If anything, they were amplified.
It's not necessarily better, and some of it could definitely go very wrong and feel superficial, but it's super interesting, and any kind of hatred for minorities absolutely doesn't come across in anything they showed or said about the game in official capacity. Yes, you have the dev saying it's about that, but you also have him apologizing and saying it doesn't. You can either choose which statement you want to believe, or you can wait for the game to come out and judge it based on the content itself. You don't have to support it to do that, I'm sure there will be plenty of articles about it when it comes out, and one can make an informed purchase decision based on that. Or you can always wait for the humble bundle and satiate that guilty pleasure-like curiosity while making sure all of your money went to charity, instead of the devs' pockets.