Miggsie's post reminds me of that chapter from Dale Spender and Sally Cline's "Reflecting Men at Twice Their Natural Size," where they did an experiment about occupying the "verbal space" in discussions with men. Try as they might, in conversations, they never managed to speak 50% of the time. Even when they got about 30% or so of the time, the men became fairly agitated and even complained that the women were too pushy/talking too much. I think that's about perceptions of how much verbal space, how "pushy" women are "allowed" to be. Very sad that.
However, the idea of the "pushy bloke" getting further career wise because they try their arm more does strike a chord with me. I have managed mostly female workforces, but I can think of two men in one place who drove me up the wall. One was in a junior role and had previously worked in the private sector. His constant bugging about his salary and wanting a more prestigious job title got right up my nose. I didn't have the same flexibility in what was a public-sector led partnership. If he hadn't found another job and quit, he was cruising for a disciplinary actually. Another was more subtle in his efforts to muscle upwards and did end up getting a temporary acting-up gig. I soon realised that he was bluffing his capabilities so if it hadn't been such a short stint, he would have been bumped back down more quickly.
In most places I've managed, we remove names and personal details from forms before shortlisting. Yes, it's possible from other info to sometimes work out the gender of a person (e.g. if they went to a single gender school, if they refer to themselves by gender in the narrative part of the application, etc.) Most of the time though, you can't tell. It's unscientific, but I have found that those with the most "brass neck" type applications (i.e. applying when they don't meet the criteria and/or using lots of "flannel" to pad out the fact that they don't actually have the experience,) tend to be blokes. As a result, they don't tend to get shortlisted! :-)