You said "They are acting like people in lead positions, full stop."

"Full stop" here would mean that there are no other variables at play.

My answer was "here is a study that shows there are variables at play."

I fail to see why this anger you.

There's more to the article than the headline. Reading through, you see this part:

"Neuroticism describes the tendency to experience negative emotion and related processes in response to perceived threat and punishment; these include anxiety, depression, anger, self-consciousness, and emotional lability. Women have been found to score higher than men on Neuroticism [...] The one facet of Neuroticism in which women do not always exhibit higher scores than men is Anger, or Angry Hostility".

That study does not prove those women "act like men". They still act like women normally act without anything unnatural in play, despite your misuse of statistics. It is perfectly within normal female behavior. They also act like pepole in leadership position because that is what is effective. Really.

So no. Neuroticism is as unrelated as a guy on spectrum throwing autistic temper tamtrum, because both types are failures at getting into leaderahip position, politics and anything where you make decisions under pressure.

I remember the quote "There are two types: women and people. When a woman acts like a person, she is accused of wanting to be a man". Who wrote that? I forget

A) You said: "There are no more variables".

B) I answered: "Here are some variables".

That's all. I did not write anything else. You are building your own straw man, having a fight with it and ending up angry.

I'm not sure I follow. The above poster claimed that women's and men's leadership styles are often different - not that one is any better than the other or that all men are distinct from all women. I fail to see how pointing out mental differences between women and men disproves this statement. If anything, it reinforces this statement about average differences between genders.