The author doesn’t provide any evidence of a negative attitude toward Gluck’s response. So “dismissal” doesn’t fit.

The author doesn’t provide any evidence of a negative attitude toward Gluck’s response. So “grudging” doesn’t fit, since there’s nothing reluctant about the author’s acceptance of Gluck’s view.

The author doesn’t exhibit “indifference.” Clearly the author is interested in Gluck’s view, since she wrote a whole passage about it. To support “indifferent,” we’d need evidence the author doesn’t care about whether Gluck’s view is right or not. But given that the author examines how critics respond to Gluck’s view and how Gluck responds to the critics, the author is not indifferent.

Although the author never explicitly endorses Gluck’s perspective, the structure of the passage provides evidence that the author agrees with it. The author focuses on explaining Gluck’s response to the critics and ends on that response — the author never describes how the critics respond to Gluck and never identifies anything in Gluck’s response that’s questionable. This is evidence of the author’s implicit (tacit) agreement with Gluck. Arguably the word “observes” and “points out” also provide evidence of implicit agreement. By using “observes,” and “points out,” the author suggests that it’s true that insisting on a female perspective is as limiting as one the critics believe the male-dominated tradition to be; Gluck accurately recognizes this truth and observes it.

This is too strongly positive. There’s no evidence of “enthusiasm” from the author. The author is fairly restrained in how she describes Gluck’s view; although there’s evidence the author implicitly agrees with Gluck, this doesn’t rise to the level of an enthusiastic opinion about Gluck’s view.