This is an outdated principle. There isn't a biological hardcode that dictates people's tastes, mannerisms or attitudes from birth based solely on chromosome makeup. If there was, there probably wouldn't be ANY women in gaming at all.
Actually this isn't an outdated principal. I was trying to find the link, but having no luck. The link was a pretty interesting documentary showing different experiments with babies.
The experiments were fairly simple. For the first one, they'd hold up pictures to newborn babies. They found that when the child had higher levels of testosterone, they focus more on pictures of mechanical object, where children with higher levels of estrogen focused more on pictures of faces.
Later on, they do an experiment with babies that were a few months old, where they set toys of different colors on a blanket, and the babies with higher testosterone gravitated to the boys' toys, while those with higher estrogen gravitated to the girls' toys. In this case it wasn't just important in showing genders had differences, but it was also used to help babies that had deformed genitals find their gender association.
Also, to deny that men and women are inherently different is to basically deny evolution. Men and women had to develop different traits to survive. Those different traits have just manifested themselves into different interests in our modern, post-tribal world.
Two things: The sample size is pretty small. 2000 households doesn't really give that great of an idea of how many people play games. It's what I would consider to be "just larger than anecdotal".
Also, what kind of person do you think is going to take a survey by the ESA? Who's really going to know what the ESA is? People who are already gamers, maybe?
The ESA stats might as well be anecdotal with the sample size it uses.
Are you me? Similar argument, and Yuru Yuri avatars. I like you.