Would it be more strictly accurate to say that "certain media reports on evolutionary psychology are sexist, in the sense of perpetuating harmful myths"?

Almost. Assuming "media" there can include peer reviewed high-profile scientific publications, then yes, that's a good chunk of it. Nearly every single article I've read so far, peer-reviewed in a scientific journal or otherwise, that crosses the boundary between analysis of ev-psych and morality to claim that certain things are "good" or "right" (or really, almost any ev-psych-related publication of any form that makes any statement on morality) has almost always contained some form of not-like-others-ism: sexism, racism, political discrimination, etc.

Of course, I haven't read all that many articles myself, and most were from non-scientific non-peer-reviewed publications (e.g. Phys.org, which has very amusing user comments for those who find humor in status games and stupidity masquerading as intelligence).

Basically, as soon as any claim on morality (or "right"-ness or "good"-ness or "natural"-ness) is made "because Evolutionary Psychology!", shit hits the fan. But is anyone here really surprised by that? It might be true that some behavior arised because of Ev-Psych, just like it might be true that light is made of waves. I see a pattern-match to the student that believes he could swim in Light because it is Waves, if he could only move fast enough.