I assume you're referring to the Catherine McCoid decolonizing gender stuff from the 90s? That is still talked about, but I'm not aware of it being taken seriously as a theory.

There are multiple theories yes, but they aren't substantially varied.

We also have a whole lineage of art from the prehistoric age to today and more figures than we did in the 1990s. Art from every period includes nude representations of women. The more recent art (which we are able to say more about)have connections to goddesses and fertility/reproduction/sex. The continuity of art suggests there should be a continuity of explanation. But the McCoid theory handles the oldest art as a special case different in kind from art that didn't come long after.

Even among the competing hypotheses, they're more closely related than many people realize. This is because religion, sex and fertility were more closely related in the ancient world than they are today. See, for example, temple prostitution.

The one outlier among the current theories I'm aware of is that the figures are supposed to show you what obese people look like. The evidence for that isn't great. For example the 2012 Dixson paper is based on having college students rate the statues for attractiveness, which seems like it's going to tell you nothing useful about the statues. But even they say the statues were about survival and reproduction, e.g.

> They may, instead, have symbolized the hope for survival and for the attainment of a well-nourished (and thus reproductively successful) maturity, during the harshest period of the major glaciation in Europe.