If you can access this article, it has all the relevant research cited at the end. it was published in February 2008, adn as of publication date, the authors state :
"Another critical research direction is for studies on bisphenol A, widely used to manufacture polycarbonate plastics and for the lining of metal cans (64). Because of the consistent animal data, epidemiologic studies on BPA are needed, especially in high-exposure subpopulations.
Critical research directions for chemicals with widespread low-dose exposure overlap with those described above for chemicals with high exposure. Apart from identifying high BPA exposure subpopulations, we need to conduct studies among members of the general population with low-level environmental BPA exposure. Another critical research need is to design studies that collect data on and allow for analysis of risks from mixtures of chemicals. Individuals are exposed to most if not all of the chemicals and metals described above, and developing methods to understand fertility impacts of mixtures is desperately needed."
So, no, the human data is still lacking. The non-human and in-vitro studies are conflicting and not necessarily relevant to the human situation.
As for age, genetics and gender, I think there is little doubt that some folks will be more sensitive or at risk to some chemicals than other people. At present we don't have the technology to fully identify all the risk genes for all possible chemical exposures. The classic example of this genetic risk to "chemicals" was the smoking study showing that people who had extra copies of a liver gene called CYP2D6, were twice as likely to get lung cancer. This turned out to be because this gene's protein converts non-carcinogneic compounds in cigarettes to carcinogenic ones. The more of this protein you have (ie more gene copies) the more carcinogenic compounds you get exposed to when you smoke.
Of course many doctors/scientists would say this is a good reason to screen smokers for this gene. WHY???? How stupid. Just tell people to stop smoking and the problem goes away without spending billions of dollars doing genetic screens on smokers so that you can tell SOME of them to stop smoking?? That's craziness.