Yep, the links between testosterone and hierarchy/drive/dominance have been established for decades. Its effects can be examined between males, and across multiple species, but there's actually no natural imperative which drives men in this regard. Come on man.
Of course hormones mean nothing. You think it's adrenaline making your heart beat stronger when you think you're in danger, or is it really social constructs all the way down?
There isn't such as thing as true objectivity.
We shouldn't even aim for objectivity.
War is peace.
Maybe in the future consider adding to the discussion constructively instead of resorting to silly (baseless) hyperbolic rhetoric.
But hormones are only a part of the story, and I think they're less important than maybe you do. I don't think the defense of "but testosterone!" is a valid explanation for the incredible disparity in representation we see in the upper echelons of society. Yes, it plays a role, but it isn't everything.
Most leadership positions are held by men, and I think that the way younger people (or people "lower in the hierarchy" I suppose) perceive this is more important than the natural inclinations due to hormonal differences. And that's what I meant by my use of the word "significantly" in my original comment. Not that the biological imperatives don't exist, but that they are not significant when compared to the societal imperatives.