The best 85/1.8 for m43?

You can "baloney" all you want, but he is exactly right.  Prior to the 1990s, 80-110 was considered the standard "portrait lens" range, and 135mm was considered the shortest of the standard telephoto focal lengths. Brochures advertising manufacturer's lens offerings were often classified in that fashion. This doesn't mean you couldn't get decent portraits from a 135 (which was the first "telephoto lens" for most beginning 35mm photographers), just as you could from a 50 (the standard "normal lens" in those days), but purchasers of a "portrait lens" generally bought something in the 80-110mm range.

The reason this was considered the standard for a portraits was the camera-to-subject distance it required for an upper torso and face portrait. The shots of the woman on this thread are a perfect example of the flattening of perspective produced by the greater camera-to-subject distance required by a 170mm FL (35mm equivalent) for the same kind of shot.

None of this is really debatable.  If you want only a head shot, a 135mm lens (or even longer) is the better portrait lens, because it places the photographer a similar distance from the subject that an 85mm lens might require for an upper torso and head shot. If you want a full-body (standing) portrait, an even shorter FL becomes the ideal "portrait lens" because it preserves the same camera-to-subject distance.

That said, all of these are general rules of thumb that would make for a boring monotony of portraiture if people didn't violate them all the time.

No baloney though.  That's just the way lenses were classified in those days. I bought my first hexanon "portrait lens," an 85mm, in about 1976.  I remember well how Konica classified their FL offerings and which ones they called "portrait lenses," as opposed to short telephotos.  The classification system may have been flawed, but that's the way it was.