Gender has nothing to do with it. The only reason why men seem more talented is simply because there are more men that play than women. If there were just as many women playing, things would be a lot different.
Oh, for $#@!'s sake...
Psychologically it may be easier to mistake a 21 year old man as a kid (whether because of looks, hobbies, etc), compared to a 21 year old woman, but that's just psychological.
I'm not sure if it's even psychological.
It probably is. Just for example, a female adult is not expected to be particularly tall, and often wears dresses, has lots of pretty colors around her, etc. But if a male happened to have that same body, without the accessories and such of course, he would just look underdeveloped. However looking and actually being are two different things. How people use their life experience is up to them. They may become very mature, or remain immature even well into adulthood.
Haven't you heard? Men run the planet. They give birth to women, and then force them to do all the dangerous and difficult jobs while they sit at home raising children.
Wait, that's not at all what men do.
:-D ! -- wait, though -- are you or are you not counting "raising children" as a difficult and dangerous job? I would.
Yeah, I disagree with Elubas that it doesn't take much talent and even that it's not an art. Molding a person is immensely more difficult than chess. Especially if you have more than one kid. Each one is different, needs change year to year, and there's no way to really prepare. Imagine you get to play 1-5 chessgames in your whole life. You mess up a kid in the "opening phase" and as an adult there can be difficulties they don't work out for decades, if at all.
From a kid's perspective you may think the parents have it all together... but they're taking care of their life in the background at the same time. I think it's something very easy to screw up and something very few are good at.
Okay, you only get to play 1-2 games (5 if you're poor) but also imagine the other player is an infant. Then your analogy is complete.