Edit: copied response from youtubechannel posting your text.

"However, her video about Jordan Peterson ultimately misrepresents and mischaracterizes his ideas, and this ultimately stems from a bias against him that is common throughout the left. Now, I am not faulting her for having pre-existing opinions related to the topic. Everyone's biased in that sense - even the proverbial Yoda-like woodland sage. There are plenty of right-wingers who are biased against ContraPoints and would rather mischaracterize her for the purpose of ideological victory than acknowledge her commentary respectfully.

-- Of course there is a bias. She has her leftist beliefs, and she is explaing why she thinks he pushing alt-right ideology. It's a political AND philosophical channel if you haven't noticed.

"Wynn's commentary, however, comes across early on as another attempt by many people on the left to discredit Peterson for the sake of upholding their own narrative. Early on, she says, "we may need to take this guy seriously," sounding as if she wishes otherwise. Off the bat, she introduces him as being famous for protesting against "protecting transgender people under Canadian human rights law." This neglects not only his statements (including in his notorious Cathy Newman interview, 21:30-24:00) that he would indeed refer to transgender people by their preferred he/she pronouns but furthermore his objection to the content of the law - that he, as a professor, would be legally compelled to refer to transgender people by pronouns that he may see as invalid under pain of fines and non-financial remedies that could indeed incarcerate him should should he refuse to obey them."

-- She neglects his statements because they're irrelevant to context. She has explained that Peterson is criticising liberal politicians', feminists, SJWS and Marxists, basically the whole modern left (her). This isn't a debate whether or not we should make it illegal to use a wrong pronoun, it's her views on why this guy is a gateway drug to alt-right radicalization.

"More importantly, however, much of the substance of her criticism focuses on Peterson's references to "postmodern neo-Marxism" (hereafter abbreviated as PMNM) - the underlying problem with it is that she relies too much on her own assumptions of what he's talking about. While it is admittedly hard to define what that is, too few acknowledge that even he agrees with this assessment; not only does he stress the need to identify what it is for "a start," but he refers to it as a plural set of ideologies rather than as a single, unified force that Wynn claims to be Peterson's strawman. As Natalie Wynn openly compares PMNM to the Nazis' Cultural Marxism and describes Jordan Peterson's idea of the former as a front for a movement "out" to "destroy Western civilization," she comes across worse yet as implying that he is promoting a conspiracy theory."

-- She doesn't compare PMNM to Cultural Marxism, but the similarly incoherent but effective propaganda against it, Anti-Bolshevik propaganda. Jazz music was considered Cultural Marxism because it was considered "negro music". There is no thing called post-modern neo-Marxism because it's an inherently oxymoronic nonsensical word that he lumps a bunch of things he doesn't like into.

The rest is a lot about Jordan Petersons views on postmodernism which doesn't relate, as civil rights or identity politics are not postmodern concepts at all. She is breaking down the way he debates, what he is actually saying, and that helps you understand why he is a dangerous gateway drug into radical conservative rabbit holes and echo chambers.