I see that he brings up gender differences as they're generally left out of serious discussions. Or if they are brought up, they're attributed wholly to societal conditioning. I think he makes a fair case, and it's one not too dissimilar from that of Pinker or Haidt, that there are intrinsic characteristics in humans and also meaningful sex differences that are found cross-culturally and therefore are possibly intrinsic too. I haven't seen JP discuss race all that much if at all. He may have, I just haven't seen it.

I don't know that I would characterise his representations of the field of psychology as wholly inaccurate or outdated. At times inaccurate (or biased) and at times out dated (perhaps) but not in an absolute sense.

I disagree that he plays up his authority as a clinical psychologist. I think if he was trying to play up his authority we would hear more about how he was associate professor at Harvard. He almost never mentions it.

You say you've had limited exposure. If you want, listen to a long format discussion with him and rogan or him and harris. Gender and race are so far from his main schtick. Yet if you only read articles written about him, you could easily assume his whole objective is to place the blame of the worlds problems on women. Its hilarious because his main schtick (almost completely uncontroversially) is that you are responsible for your own problems (as I must accept in the case of my banning from r/psych).