>>Is this concerning or just laughable?

It's a little concerning that the the OP considers overt objectification and sexualisation of women to be something which should be defended.

But mostly, I'd say he's just laughable.

So, a "bit of both" is my considered answer.

A game can both be developed by women and also be sexist towards women.

I agree and as I stated I enjoyed Tomb Raider (story was written by a woman) and Bayonetta (developed by a woman). Anita claims that these women (the ones that makes sexist games toward women) are just "internalizing misogyny". I may just be working myself up over a false perception of censorship and I admit that openly, but I think it is better to worry about it and it be nothing rather than ignore it and it turn out to be something.

>>Is this concerning or just laughable?

It's a little concerning that the the OP considers overt objectification and sexualisation of women to be something which should be defended.

Exactly.

Even in the OP, a list of suggestions is presented -- "eight things developers can do to make games less shitty for women" -- and the response is to decide whether the list is (A) concerning or (B) laughable.

Let's see...
Option A) you find the idea of reducing unnecessary sexualisation, and an increase in diversity of lead characters to include all genders, sexualities and races to be concerning. This is such an irrational fear that it's hard where to know to begin trying to calm it... If in this camp you're going to go down in history with the people who campaigned against universal suffrage, interracial marriage, or gay rights...

Option B) you think the list of suggestions is laughable. The very idea that sexism either exists or is an issue is an issue that anyone would bother discussing at an academic level, is a complete joke to you. Every item on the list is a joke to you, so as far as you're concerned there's no point in having a discussion about these points, ever.
There's not much to say about this choice, other than you're either extremely ignorant or bigoted, or both. Seriously, it's just plain nasty.

The lack of an "option C" is extremely concerning, as it exposes nasty worldview of the bigot.

Imagine if someone started a thread saying:
"Person X had suggested that gays should be able to marry. Is this view concerning, or just laughable?"...
Or:
"Person Y has pointed out that most films fail the Bechdel test, and they've posted a list of suggestions to improve the situation. Should I be concerned by these views, or just laugh at their stupidity?"

It's just horrible. Stop being so horrible to people. You need to realise that this kind of behaviour is actually abhorrent.
Try discussing people's ideas instead of brushing the off as being a joke to you while simultaneously demonising them.

I'd wager the "feedback loop" is because the game industry has already found the profitable segment.

I remember when there were a whole bunch of "games for girls" dev teams launched in the PSX era, and most folded after releasing a few titles. I'd think the burden of trying to convince female gamers to shift from mobile/casual games to desktop/console games should be handled by the mobile/casual companies branching out their existing IP to console/desktop, because it's a concept that didn't work out for the usual AAA devs.

Who knows, if the mobile devs could take a game like clash of clans, put on some kind of desktop/console integration, they'd potentially make a killing if they could get the same size install base.

Or maybe the stereotypes of females who spend way too much time on their phone's are true, and they'd have no interest in playing on desktop/console.

I think this is a stereotype right there. And also: Cause of Effect? Are women more attracted to casual games because they prefer that? Or because hardcore games caters to a male audience front and center?

Somewhere I read that with the shift from a msucular, brutish macho hero in the NES / SNES era Castelvania Games to a more androgyn, pale and elegant looking Half Vampire hero in the PS1 era SotN Castlevania Game, the amount of female palyers became significantly higher. Seems the devs had numbers to back up these claims.

Now, this could also be down to a shift to a more RPG style of play, a nicer looking and more detailed game, and a more engaging story, but I think the shift away from dude-bro stereotypes in the choice of the hero most probably did heavely contribute to the stronger interest for the title from female gamers.

This has nothing to do with Anitas manifesto or typical feminist claims... but it is a reality that a) female gamers tastes are not that different from male gamer ones, but b) they are different, and the current game dev "meta" overly caters to stereotypes favoured by the male audience...

Not that I blame them, if you look at the gender distribution among hardcore gamers its just smart business sense, the question is again: is this a cause or the effect?

Somewhere I read that with the shift from a msucular, brutish macho hero in the NES / SNES era Castelvania Games to a more androgyn, pale and elegant looking Half Vampire hero in the PS1 era SotN Castlevania Game, the amount of female palyers became significantly higher. Seems the devs had numbers to back up these claims.

That is pretty much what happens with anime, anime with androgynous heroes are quite popular with women. It would be nice to know the numbers of Metal Gear Solid 2 vs the others, Raiden is pretty much the definition of androgynous pale male hero in that one, and its as a Metal Gear Solid as any other in the series.

Nono, 50% of the population is average, 25% is really smart, 25% is really stupid. That's how gaussian distributions work :3

Except society doesn't follow a gaussian distribution. The proletariate is by far the biggest group. I wouldn't be able to present an exact figure since I simply have no way of knowing (nor does anyone else). It might be 85% or 90% or 95%, but the overall idea is correct.

As a comparative example which is even more pronounced, look who owns what in your country (or in any other country). About 2% of the population own 70-75% of everything, the next 5% of the population own about 20-25% (you are probably a member of that group) and the others have to do with the 5% that remain.

It is similar with occupational qualification, education, general knowledge, and political accountability.

All the people you know (of which you think as "The Whole People") really come from a 5% subgroup which is pretty much at the top of the food chain. The vast majority of people in your country is... mindboggingly... different in their education, skills, and intelligence, and of course, in their entire lives.

Thing is, the proletarians have just as many votes as you have, and their votes count just as much, and there is a stunning number of them which is stunningly stupid.