That's quite a leap - from me saying sex matters, to you concluding that men are better suited to being CEOs. I never said that.
But then, I expect you know I didn't actually suggest that and you just wanted to keep the conversation going as a gambit, perhaps?
But, seeing as you asked (and totally off-topic, by the way - but you are the OP so I guess it's your thread):
Airline pilot. Training costs of £200k plus. Starting salary is subsistence wage. Probability of a male trainee being able to amortise those costs over a 40 year working life - X%. Probably of a female trainee doing the same - Y%.
Y is almost always lower than X. Because, you know, evolutionary factors, hormones, teratogenic risks of long-term exposure to ionizing radiation at high altitude, other reproductive health factors, e.g. jet lag and changes to circadian rhythms, challenges with nursing babies whilst away etc. Then, for good measure, add in the differences in how men and women age, the differing likelihoods of contracting long-term sickness that affects suitability for work at altitude such as osteoporosis etc.. Followed by the requirements to maintain flying currency and recency to maintain an Air Transport Pilot's License, and the costs of simulator time, check flights, and lower first-time pass rates that accompany skill fade, etc. And that's before you factor in the societal factors such as extended periods of maternity leave, the stress of being a parent to a young family whilst working in differing time-zones from one day to the next. Bottom line is there are biological and social reasons why female pilots will on average have a shorter career in the cockpit than male pilots. The economics of how pilot training is funded means that only the already very wealthy would consider it a sensible economic decision. As a result, women account for about 5% of the world's commercial pilots. Sex matters.
I used Airline pilot because a) I know the industry well, but also b) specifically because it has better understood biological factors than other professions. Hopefully not too many people will take issue with that. But you can substitute any profession that has high initial and mid-career training costs borne by the individual (post-graduate qualifications, MBAs, etc.) and the same financial asymmetry will apply. And you can also substitute any profession where "nights out of bed" is a significant factor - offshore oil and gas engineer, naval architect, firefighter and you'll see similar imbalances.
If you take a more generous and broader definition of 'profession' to include 'the trades' the roles where numbers of men dominate increases further. Forestry, construction, mining, electricity generation and distribution, waste and waste water treatment, heavy industry ... all dominated by men. These jobs are dangerous, dirty, difficult (physically) and most often, done by men. It's in the clean, safe, steady, indoor jobs (CEOs, finance, medicine, academia and education, public sector administration) where women have been beating down the door and claiming for themselves the 'rights' to access these roles (and quite rightly, too). But I stand by the comment you took umbrage to - in most professions there are clearly identifiable factors (e.g. numbers of applicants, duration in role, reasons for leaving the industry) where sex differences between men and women explain any observed differences in the numbers of men and women thriving in those roles. Because sex has always mattered. It's taken TRAs to make the women who liked the useful fiction that sex didn't matter (when it came to getting better pay and cushier jobs) realise this.