Hot-blooded, cold-blooded? Look, if someone is a serial-killer, you can talk until you're blue about the semantics of the word "aggression", but it's sounds ridiculous. The act of murdering someone itself typifies extreme aggression. Whether it be by poison or proxy. Actors can fake extreme aggression for a role, but in real life, if humans could only communicate with their actions, then murder is at the top of the charts for displaying extreme aggression.
I'm not talking about the moral aspects of aggression. The discussion here is about male vs. female behavior patterns. More specifically, how do they display aggression? There's a hot-blooded, "explosive" aggression type, and there's a cold-blooded, planned aggression type. This hot-blooded aggression (violent anger outbursts, joing gangs, etc) refers to behavior that's typically male. Cold-blooded and psychopathic aggression is another topic entirely. Serial killers usually don't act in hot blood. They can't, because if they did, they would be easily caught.
Stereotypically, female chess players have a very aggressive style, so whoever you saw say that was an idiot anyway lol.
Then consider this. Given a defensive strategy and a very aggressive gambit that are objectively equally good (i.e, have been measured to be roughly good by an engine), how likely are women to go for a risk-taking strategy and play the more aggressive gambit?
I don't have stats to answer that. The most famous female players, like J.Polgar, would undoubtedly sacrifice and try to rip your living guts out (figuratively of course haha).
I've only played 3 different women, but all of them were tactical, sacrificial players. My first female opponent sacrificed 3 (!) minor pieces before move 25 to try to checkmate me... I avoided mate but was down a queen for a rook in the end and I resigned.
But it's different to sacrifice because you have to and to sacrifice because you want to "show" you are a powerful opponent. Let's think of it the other way around: if these women were shown a best option that was not sacrificial and a dubious option that was sacrificial, how likely would they go for the dubious option?
Obviously I have no way of answering that.
But when you play an all gambit repertoire (like the last women I played and lost to) or when you sacrifice before move 25 in a calm position (like the lady I talked about in my first post) then it's choice.
BTW I played her a few years later and she changed her style to very clam and positional... this time she beat me in a drawn out endgame haha. We even talked about our first game and she told me she had really changed her approach.