I could help with insightfull information, but let's just face it, this thread is beyound hopeless by now.
Make up your mind on what you think is the right ruling and be done with it, because some people here will clearly never submit to the other opinion.
Realistically a gauntlet is nothing more than a metal skin for your hand. It makes perfect sense that striking with it is considered an unarmed attack, its just your fist with something hard on it, it doesn't have pokey bits, you don't hold it, etc. Why would it stop a monk from flurrying? A cestus doesn't, its a monk weapon and the most advanced form of combat gauntlet. Why does a gauntlet provoke and a cestus does not? Because a cestus has bits designed for parrying, a gauntlet is just a metal glove. If you're going to ask this kind of question then ask why can't I slash with my shortsword or stab with my longsword? Both have sharp edges and sharp points.
I see no reason why it shouldn't be ruled as read, an attack with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack. Otherwise being as in "other than it does lethal damage". I would rule that a monk can use a gauntlet to flurry, its damage does scale with his unarmed attack, etc. however he cannot do non-lethal damage with it unless he takes the appropriate penalty.
A monk with his hands tied behind his back can use his unarmed strike normally, but he wouldn't be able to use his gauntlets to make those strikes as his fists are unavailable.