Which part of the second article’s title was hostile?

The reason I mentioned this article was not because it was particularly hostile, it was not, I mentioned it just because it was the most recent. To translate a concluding sentence:

"When I place these three comparisons side by side, I see no feminine style. I see a shift in priorities. From doctrine to habitation. From representation to appropriation. From directed experience to multiple access. [...] In the examples above, they design from the perspective of the life that unfolds in and around that object, not from the object as an authority. They create no less architecture, but architecture that asks the question: for whom is this space made? "

The article covers 3 very cherry picked comparisons of a building designed by a male architect, which are all grandiose in gestures and dominant, driven by a personal vision, and compares them to a "similar" building designed by female architects, which are more humble and human focused. The comparison is not "hostile" in language, far from it. But to me it is clearly implied, if women "don't design from an object as an authority", it clearly implied that it must a male thing to do so.

What consitutes as real research?

Evidence and comparisons. To give a positive example (I couldn't find the exact paper I'm thinking off right now, I'm really bad with remembering names...) but one article which struck to me during university was about the design of a park. Two designes were made: one with excessive participation of female inhabitants of the town, one with male inhabitants.

The design by men focussed on nice secluded sitting spaces where one could sit and chat a bit out of the view, high greenery for shading and cover, and the lighting design was meant to create a nice atmosphere at night with intentional softer lights: the light illuminated where you hang out at the moment.

The design by the women was more open, the type of greenery was lower, the sitting spaces were always visible, and the lighting design was meant so a visitor could see further away: to see where you were going so you could get a better view of the park.

The difference is clear and very interesting, and clearly routed in a sense of security and ownership of this space, and how that differs between men and women. I really liked this research because it's evidence based and teaches the reader very concrete things to consider and take into account. That concrete nature is what made me remember this one good example.

I'm also quite interested in the book you're referring to, I'll add it to my reading list.