Colin Wright's response is spot on, and I'd be interested to read more.
The "your understanding is high school from 37 years ago" response is so misleading. I don't think anyone who works at the cutting edge of developmental biology or in research into differences of sexual development would say there's been a "paradigm shift" (completely new conceptual framework which replaces what's gone before - like Newtonian mechanics to relativity theory, or Dalton's understanding of chemistry to, say, modern quantum chemistry, or the kinetic theory of heat replacing caloric theory). They'd say that we're still working (for mammalian reproduction) with two sexes, an X chromosome and a Y chromosome which mostly come in pairs of XX or XY, but sometimes throw up unusual trisomies (XXY - Kleinfelter's) or singletons (X - Turner's syndrome).
Over the last 37 years, no doubt we've learned a hell of a lot about endocrine development, development of the foetus in utero, which bits of which chromosomes code for what, etc. But that's all icing on the cake of "99% plus of human reproductive biology is down to there being two sexes, female, with large immobile gametes and XX chromosomes, who gestate young, and male, with small, mobile gametes and XY chromosomes." It's not a whole new different cake with a completely different recipe and three (or four, or a multiplicity of layers) instead of two.
And appeal to authority/putting the boot into people on the basis of them being lower down the academic hierarchy than you is really shit behaviour and extremely bad science.