I have to really agree with Shaeor and Sharkerbob, above. I don't want to echo sentiment, however, so I'll try to add my own branch to this.
A work of literature will always carry the personality and bias of the person who wrote it. Some very talented people can shove that bias and those personal views down to tell really great stories, but you can't completely wipe all of that away. If you were to, you'd end up with a completely empty bit of pablum story.
Even in the works you mentioned (most of which, I enjoy as well, Harry Potter, not so much), there is a lot of the author that bleeds through into the work. George R.R. Martin really enjoys killing people off and shoving mortality in our faces. He's also not squeamish about many otherwise taboo subjects. Douglas Adams loves to spin a yarn and make people realize that reality itself is a joke. He can wind around the laws of plausibility in such a malleable fashion that you soon find yourself questioning your own existence, wondering if you're just a jumble of animated vowels scrolling through a cybernetic whale's mind during a data glitch. I'm not touching J.K. Rowling, because I'm mad at her. Patrick Rothfuss is able to write fantasy with a lot of emotional foderol and vitriol thrown in. As you mention, he can come across as a wistful, moody, teenager sometimes with his fantasy. Maybe he's channeling his geeky frustrations from playing a lot of D&D in high school.
At a certain point, really great authors know that although they're writing the story that they want to write, in their own style of writing it... They're still writing for others. Other people's enjoyment. Other people's inspiration. Somewhere between the rough draft that is just for them, and the final piece that makes it to publication, they turn a private fantasy into a shared one. They have to weed a bit of their ego out of the work.
Some people, though, just can't separate themselves from their work. Maybe this is what you're picking up on. I'm not going to point any fingers or mention any works. I've seen some truly amazing gems by some really talented people, and I've seen some works that made me cringe so hard, I vibrated at such a high frequency, that I almost shifted into another dimension. A horrible dimension of terrible writing. A whole new genre of literature that I can only describe as Horribad.
I'm sure some people may think of my own work as Horribad. That is entirely their prerogative. Moving on.
This is just my, not so humble, opinion, but a character should be a well thought-out character -first- and then a [insert descriptor element here] -last-. It really shouldn't matter if they're female, male, something other, dragon, sentient rock, or whatever else. They need to be a deep, well-rounded, believable entity first and foremost.
If the characters are just cardboard cut-out vehicles for the author to push some agenda or narrative, the whole work will suffer. That might be fine for a neophyte philosophical piece, but for fiction, especially speculative fiction of any variety, it simply won't work. An author is an artist, sometimes they have to take a step back from what they're working on and see the whole thing in a completely different light. "Hey, I really like socialism and I think this conveys my personal politics really well, but... What would an anarcho-capitalist think about it? Hmm."
A work needs to appeal to the broadest range of readers to be considered a success. Personal pieces written just for fun, or for some private reason are all well and good, don't get me wrong. For a work to get out there and start raking in the monies or the readership that might make Wildbow blush, you need to appeal to as varied an audience as possible. Filling in personal agendas is a great way to alienate a sizable amount of your audience. It may get an artistic reaction, which is great, but it probably won't sell well, or rate in a lot of analytics.
That being said, above, we are all still human. Well, some of us, at any rate. We feel strongly about things and that can bleed into our work, or even prove to be the very muse that makes us write in the first place. We still have to keep those emotions and that muse in check though. Do what we can to see both sides of the issue, and know when to step out of our own work so that others can enjoy it as well.
Some people do have a really hard time writing characters of the opposite sex or a different gender identity from themselves. Maybe they just haven't had enough exposure to different viewpoints and lifestyles. Maybe they have very strong feelings about something in their past that they just can't get over. That is part of who they are, and it will affect their art, at least at the beginning.
When it comes to your original question, of if a writer's sex affects my personal enjoyment or views of a writing...
No, not really. It doesn't, if the writer is good. If the writer is terrible and starts trying to shove their viewpoints down my throat with every word on the page (very rare), then the little 'Carl Jung' of my brain starts analyzing things. It's what I do as a reader and a writer, myself. I want to know how other writer's work. What they do that succeeds and what they do that fails. Why is this person writing in this way? What do they expect of me as a reader when they write like that? Do they even care that their reader may have entirely different sensibilities to them, or are they completely blinded by how great they are for putting words to a page? The questions go on for some time.
I know that in the current artistic and political climate we find ourselves in right now, a lot of people (due to the prevalence of social media, I would assume) like to shove their opinions down other people's throat or give unsolicited political views quite readily. I'm not a fan of that and I try to keep my own to myself as much as I possibly can. I don't think it's a matter of gender at all. I think it's a matter of socialization and personality. Some people are born with their foot planted in their own mouths (I'm guilty of this in spades), while others are a lot more detached and analytical of things. Some people can remove themselves from their art, while others -live- their art.
I'm interested in seeing other people's opinions and views on this. I'll keep quiet and watch for now. I understand your frustrations CorpseMoney. Hopefully, something in what I said furthers this conversation.