If the data is flawed, so is the hypothesis.
I agree that he could have put in a sentence citing papers that take issue with the conclusions of Hamer and LeVay.
He misused/misrepresented LeVays work. That is a serious flaw. See post 29.
Now you are making no sense at all.
The data here are about how many brothers a man had, whether he was raised with them, whether they were older or younger. It's not rocket science to collect that type of information, nor is this the kind of information that people are likely to have trouble remembering or reporting accurately.
You will have to show that there was some problem collecting such simple info to have a convincing argument.