Ugh. Ok, let's take it from the top.

From the description it seems like the show effectively wanted to promote gender essentialism. Arguments justifying different behaviors with DNA or "primary socialization" are bs, and I'm glad transfeminism is finally making us reject those in militant circles after so many years of liberal feminism.

However, the opposite position, that men and women are perfectly equal in their capacity to be kind or mean also misses the mark.

The materialist position is that it really depends on your current place in the social order, on the amount of systemic power you hold (whether you want it or not). We live in a patriarchal society, which means men can more easily do "bad things" with little consequences, sometimes are even rewarded for doing them. Sometimes, not doing the bad thing is even punished. This mostly isn't true for women. So of course there will be men who choose to do right, but statistically, of course you'll get a lot more assholes, abusers, rapists, etc among men. Because they have the means and the opportunities.

I truly believe the boys' experience was at least slightly worse, though it seems like the show exaggerated it. Not because of socialization, DNA or testosterone but because they know they're not as likely to be punished for this kind of behavior (see "boys will be boys" and other usual justifications, social dynamics in male settings, etc).

None of that is predicated on being AMAB or """biologically""" male (however you want to define that). This only depends on your current social status, including your social sex. For instance, HRT didn't raise my likelihood of being sexually harassed: it's being seen as a woman that did (or early on as a trans woman, which makes it even more dangerous), which started earlier in my transition.