I've got to say, having dug, from the incomplete version of that article ('Sexual hormones and the brain: an essential alliance for sexual identity and sexual orientation.') I can find, doesn't look good. It begins with some unsupported truisms, on which I know there is contradictory research.
However, I find the blog review of it truly bizarre. The publication looks to me as if it's intended as a review of the state of the subject (ie., paediatric neuroendocrinology). Such books do not typically present new work, but rather summaries of old work - which is what this article (very poorly) does.
Maybe it's been cited to kingdom come, and that's why the blog author is so fed up with hearing it cited. But s/he doesn't say that: s/he expresses concerns with the methodology.
And eats reiterates those claims, without any further sense of the state of the field.
I am not remotely an expert, I have no clue what's going on in medicine at all. A first year med student would be immesurably better informed. So I'm not pretending I know what's going on.
So, perhaps some proper citations - and explanations - would help.