Well what you say is very well and forcefully expressed (and I read it multiple times not to understand the point, but out of sheer pleasure! I'm feeling writer's envy!), and I do know about the mitochondrial inheritance etc. (check out this awesome song, for instance).

But I don't know anything about the conclusions you draw, jesting or not. I'd need to study the issue further, and it does sound highly interesting!

A priori, without really knowing anything about it, I can 'argue' that what you theorize is absolutely false, because if any sex was genetically favored over the other, there'd be more of that sex. So, to take the Genghis Khan example again, every other male failed to the extent that he succeeded. So, being a male is not good. Being Genghis is good. In some societies females were actually favored over males, because they were guaranteed to carry offspring, whereas with males it was all or nothing, a gamble. I think there's places in Africa where that's still the case: most males don't procreate, and a few ones have wives to spare.

So, on average (and obviously) women have as many kids as males do! If female DNA preponderated, there'd be less males being born, until their rarity would increase their value to match that of the female, and then the ratios would balance out, let's say 1 male for every 4 females. I think there is data that actually there are slightly more women born compared to males, which might give your argument some support!

The same line or reasoning, I should mention, applies to the queen/drones analogy: given their genetic similarity, there is no sense in which the queen is favored over the drones. If being a queen was advantageous, natural selection would favor more queens being born.