This is funny. It reminded me of a conversation I had after buying a new 10 speed bicycle. My father objected that it was a 'boys bike' and that I should take it back. When I asserted it was a bike, not a boy's or a girl's, just a bicycle, he pointed to the structural part that extended from the handlebar support back to below the seat. His concern was that should I fall forward I would hurt myself. Struggling to find a way of expressing myself that would not be more uncomfortable than necessary for both of us, and at the same time struggling with the cognitive dissonance of this in terms of human anatomy, I spluttered for a moment. Upon regaining my composure, I found the words to point out that the male anatomy - the boy bits, so to speak - were at greater risk of injury and pain by the location of the structural support than the female anatomy, and that "girl bikes" were designed to allow girls to get on them in skirts - and I had about as much intention of wearing skirts, much less long skirts, while riding this bike as I had plans to ride horses sidesaddle on a regular basis.
So, a word to manufacturers:
You've made progress realizing that boys might also like to use an easy bake oven, or dolls like GI Joe even if you have to call them action figures to pretend they are not dolls. But you still have a long way to go in understanding gender as it relates to play and to toys. So here is a clue; stop making things pink to appeal to girls, especially the sickening 'not-found-in-nature' shades that remind us of anti-diarrhea medicine more than anything else. The old Pepto doesn't bring up feelings of playful. I don't particularly like pink, and neither do many women and girls. Some men do. It's a color, damn it, just like any other color; the gender association is not real, it is totally arbitrary.
Toys are toys; lose the gender orientation already. If you have any questions in your mind about marketing a new toy, or an existing toy, apply the diagram below. That goes for adult games as well.