About the chromosome thing. John Dawes in his book of Livebearing Fishes (paperback edition, 1995, pp. 68-69) explains it as follows:
"While the sex of a mammal can usually be relatively easily determined by looking at the chromosomes of a living cell, things are not quite as clear-cut when it comes to fish.
Certain species...have clear-cut, identifiable sex chromosomes- the autosomes. They are also morphologically indistinguishable between the sexes. This means that in most fish the male and female cells cannot be distinguished, as they can in mammals, by their possession of X or Y chromosomes.
This is because sex determination in fish is polygenic or polyfactorial. As both these terms indicate, numerous genetic interactions are at work when it comes to determining the sex of an individual fish.
First put forward by Winge in 193, the polygenic theory allocates sex determination not only to those genes that may be located on the genuine sex chromosomes, but also to a host of others that occur on the autosomes. This applies both to species in which the sex chromosomes are identifiable and to those in which they are not. In the end, it is not just a question of whether a fish has identifiable sex chromosomes or not; it is more a question of the ratioof male to female factors determining the sex of an individual.
The sex chromosomes are assumed to carry superior sex genes that have greater mae or genetic power than the other male and female genes located on the autosomes. These male and female factors are often referred to as M and F determinants respecively...What appears to happen is that the M and F factors within the sex chromosomes themselves determine which genetic switches are going to be turned on. If a predominance of male type switches are turned on, then the fish in question will develop into a male, and vice versa. This may explain to an extent why environmental factors appear to play such a publicised role in sex determination of certain fishes."
He then goes on (p. 69) to discuss sex reversal. This has been well documented in clown fish and wrasses, but there are as yet no cases of sex change in guppies and swordtails that are scientifically documented.
In Lynden's case, for this to carry scientific weight, he would need to prove that his female was a genuine female. Saying "I am experienced and I know what a female looks like" is not scientific proof. Looking for sex chromosomes is not an option, dissection is not an option- he would really need to show that this individual female had given birth (on its own, not with other females who might be the real mother) and then turned into a male, i.e. a fish that was able to impregnate other virgin females. As far as I know, the situation is still the same as when Dawes wrote: noone has carried out these experiments under sufficiently controlled conditions.