I'm baffled by this suggestion:

"A comprehensive exposure history needs to be taken which includes domestic responsibilities, such as exposure to cleaning chemicals and caring responsibilities"

I don't see how or why I would inquire into the private lives of workers, nor what I would do with such information.

I would look to the realisation that in both the "domestic" and working environment there are so many agents and exposures it would be impossible and impracticable to record them all to glean useful data for control.

Instead we will forever be playing catch up and as example look at the output from ECHA on restrictions and authorisations since Europe adopted REACH. Those annex entries being the agreed tip of the iceberg based not only on the science but socio-economic deliberation.

Why do we still have asbestos in buildings? (Rhetorical)

The article also seems to confuse sex and gender - it maintains "The cancers experienced by female fire fighters differ from those experienced by their male counterparts, while certain chemical exposures are associated with early onset menopause." but then apparently extrapolates from this to advocate that gender based risk assessments should be done.

While it's at least reasonably credible that the physiological effects of certain chemicals may differ in men and women (and influence on menopause is sex-specific), it seems to me a bit of a leap to assume that there will be different physiological effects depending on how the individual identifies or expresses their gender.

Conceivably the author is advocating assesment by gender assuming it's easier to run with what an individual identifies as rather than requirng details of their chromosomes, but that's unexplained.  I also acknowledge that since psychology and physiology can interact (cf the various studies about health benefits of having friends / going to church / etc) it's not impossible that gender (as distinct from sex) influences physiological response, but that extraoplation seeems to be done silently in the article (except the implication that those that identify as female use more cleaning chemicals than those that identify as male - and I'm not sure that's true - my wife tends to favour 'natural' vinegar and tea-tree-oil and whatnot, whereas I tend more to just blast it with the highest concentration hydrochloric acid I can lay my hands on).

FWIW, we do have female-specific and male-specific PPE.  It is differently-shaped not just differently-sized.  Actually the women get 'better' than the men in some cases, because it tends to be the more expensive options that come in different cuts (that is, teh male-specific we issue is just the standard item, but our suppliers' female-specific items tend to be only in the 'premium' range - possibly the only case in existence where the ladies garments have more pockets than the mens...).