Re: But I am the 1% !

I don't think that conformity is always cultural. In fact, I think it's pretty obvious it isn't.

I suppose we should throw to the bin all the teen gay suicides, because they don't fit the theory.

For example, male animals tend to be larger and stronger than females so that a) they can physically dominate females and spread their seed and b) they can physically dominate other males to assure they get the female.

Not entirely. The size differential is biased towards the gender that has the most partners - in species that are polyandric rather than polygynic it's reversed, and I must say usually more markedly dimorphic than it is in polygynic species: see many spiders, fish and most social insects.

Yes, your assessment is generally right for humans, but is not itself a male feature, it is, so to speak, a "sultanistic" feature but the sultan can be female too.

Rape and assault are crimes for a reason.

Yet, if we become a space-faring species, which is still likely, we will need warriors. Or we will be walking merrily to our own destruction.

There are other ways to establish dominance, of course, but most of them are also a detriment to the species (wealth accumulation/hoarding,

Accumulation is a protection against waste; waste inevitably leads to impoverishing yourself and your dependants, which is detrimental to everyone. It also protects against bubbles, and while the debate is in full force in current Economics, it might be that bubbles are themselves inevitable due to human psychology - in which case accumulation is also adaptive that way.

artificial hierarchies [and other examples of false value], etc.)

Are there any hierarchies not linked to biology itself (such as male/female, young/old and arguably racism) or to inescapable economics (such as wealth storage as you mentioned) or to power itself because of power (ie, the whole anarchist conception)?

I don't think so.
And if I am right, biological hierarchies are likely to reappear or survive in some way; economical hierarchies are likely never to disappear; and power hierarchies will exist as long as some people have power over another (whether or not that power is justified because of something else).

Moreover, males were primarily the hunters and warriors, but now we have a fairly standardized method of food production which makes hunting unnecessary, and that male aggression tends to get channeled now in unhealthy ways.

Yet the hunting mindset is not good only for hunting. It is the driving force of innovation, and as more people are driven away from working in food production and mining, innovation gains more and more importance to keep society running.

Thus, on a cost/benefit analysis, these traits are far more detrimental than useful.

I don't think they are even today; and if they are today, they certainly are not in a timeframe of "forever".

At any rate, it's moot because we're near the point where we can control our own evolution anyway, if we're not their already.

True.

And I think we will be able to become cyborgs before we are able to truly design ourselves completely in a 100% biological body.

(Although, ultimately, there are advantages to keeping both possibilities open.)