We already know, it's not like if female rulers were an unknown quantity. And empirical examples (Thatcher, Catherine the Great, Maria-Theresa, Elisabeth I, ...) shows that it would basically be the same.
There's a reasonable argument that you'd need to exclude women from dynastic monarchies, and women who fought through a male-candidate-dominated democratic process for their prominence. The selection process weeds out the archetypical woman (or neurotypical, or stereotypically feminine in thought, or whatever you want to call it. The Iron Lady was not your Mum).
Hilary Clinton is another example. Wellesley to warmonger? Something happened there, and my suspicion is that it has to do with "competing" in a male-dominated arena.
And what makes you think that competing in a female-dominated arena would make for nicer people?
If the women-dominated workplaces I worked in are any indicator, it wouldn't change much at all.
> The Iron Lady was not your Mum
Yeah, and Gengis Khan is not my granddad. What's your point? People cunning, ambitious, and ruthless enough to reach the highest offices will not be representative of the average human, independently of their sex.
The argument is that our selection process for leaders is basically broken, and the winners are less "men and women" than "aggressive egotists with varying genitalia".
Males are more often in the extreme edges of the personality curves. It seems likely to be the case with aggression and egotism also. Women who compete with them are less common (in the field, but also in the female population), but often similarly extreme.
