We know what behaviors in this social setting correlate with various biological markers, including maleness overall as well as more specific variables such as testosterone, and we can say that in this setting they tend to match up with what we think of as “aggression”.
But trying to pinpoint which portion of observable behavior is due to biology and which portion to socialization or the surrounding cultural environment that forms the context is a lot like deciding how much of the area of the swimming pool is caused by its length and how much is due to its width. (And then it occurs to you that it has volume, not just area, because it has depth as well).
Most of radical feminist theory posits that “power over other people” is a specifically patriarchal modality. Which does not mean the same thing as “men are like that because they are men”, btw. Patriarchy is a way of being a society, a pattern of organizing principles, not (merely) “the boys run things”. Yet at the same time, most of these theories say that it is no accident that patriarchy does, in fact, specifically enshrine male power, not just power generically (the enshrining of power generically just sort of comes with the package).
Why? Depends on which theorist you ask/read. Many of them focus on reproduction, motherhood — a biological difference that doesn’t necessarily result in male dominance but which, if organized socially in a certain way, will elicit that pattern eventually. Some focus on sexuality in conjunction with reproduction and motherhood. Some examine the individual psychological formation of the “self” and how it differs depending on whether you are male or female because of the fact of motherhood and reproduction. Some set the whole social organization of motherhood and reproduction against the specific backdrop of the development of agriculture, of settling down and ceasing to be hunter-gatherers, stating in essence that the reproductive differences did not result in male domination until a certain point in our species’ timeline. Some focus more on the herding and controlling of animal reproduction (cattle, etc) and how that affected the way we perceive motherhood and reproduction.
Meanwhile, of course, there are non-feminist theorists dealing with the same question. These are more likely to think patriarchy is inevitable, whether they base it (again) on reproduction and motherhood and how they are socially organized (in this case saying that all likely ways of doing so result in male supremacy) or on more individual differences such as testosterone or even bigger muscles (the “men dominate because they can” approach to explaining patriarchy).
It is rather difficult to know for sure, although I have a strong fondness for the agricultural-origins theories myself.