Regarding gender ratios: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher's_principle

There's exceptions, but they tend to be colonial animals in the broadest sense e.g. how clownfish males are famously able to become female but each group has one breeding male and one breeding female at any given time*, or bees where the males (drones) are functionally flying sperm and there's only one fertile female in any given colony; or some reptiles which have a temperature-dependent sex determination that may have been 50/50 before we started causing rapid climate change but in many cases isn't now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature-dependent_sex_dete...

* Wolves, despite being where nomenclature of "alpha" comes from, are not this. The researcher who coined the term realised they made a mistake and what he thought of as the "alpha" pair were simply the parents of the others in that specific situation: https://davemech.org/wolf-news-and-information/

products of an asymmetric reaction performed without enantiomeric control can selectively catalyse the formation of more products with the same handedness -- this is called autocatalysis. so the first full reaction might produce a left-handed product (by chance) but that left-handed product will then cause future products to be preferentially left-handed. see the [Soai reaction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soai_reaction?wprov=sfla1) for an example of this.

as mentioned by others this is conjectural but it is a popular (if somewhat unfalsifiable) explanation for homochirality

Wrt amino acids and sugars I personally don't have to explain as a good many others have already.

eg: For one, Isaac Asimov in the 1970s wrote at length on this in his role as a non fiction science writer with a Chemistry Phd

> male/female ratios somehow tend to balance at 50/50.

This is different to the case of actual right handed dominance in humans and to L- Vs R- dominance in chirality ...

( Men and women aren't actual mirror images of each other ... )

Well "definitely correct" has no real place in probabilistic arguments almost by ipso factum absurdum :-)

The chirality argument made is more akin to dynamic systems balance; yes, you can balance a pencil on its point .. but given a bit of random tilt one way or the other it's going to tend to keep going and end near flat on the table.