With the added benefit of validating an effect in a wholly different subset of the population than the one where it had previously been measured: prior studies seem to have used mostly convenience samples of mostly men (mostly sourced from explicitly entrepreneurship-flavored environments).
But your point is still valid. The conventional wisdom on why risk-taking people might be more prone to toxoplasmosis in the first place is that they're more likely to eat undercooked or other ill-prepared meat, which is actually a much more significant risk factor for toxoplasmosis than cat ownership.
This may have something to do with the suppression of risk aversion;
Then you throw a little (potentially a lot) of survivors' bias into the mix, and this is what you get.