These words in the first sentence:

... he publicly spoke out in opposition to an act passed by the Parliament of Canada to prohibit discrimination on the basis of “gender identity and expression.”

... lend an impression that Peterson was somehow in favor of such discrimination.

However, anyone who open-mindedly listened to Peterson's comments around that issue would know that his rational objection to the legislation was about its feature of "compelled speech". It apparently made it illegal not to use the specific pronouns stipulated by any individual one might be speaking to. Peterson said that when asked politely to use someone's chosen pronouns he's happy to do so, but the legal compelling of such speech is totally the wrong idea and leads to other aspects of tyranny.

In the second sentence the writer asserts Peterson's appeal is:

... primarily to an audience of young, mostly white, straight, cisgender men from middle-class backgrounds who hold conservative political opinions.

I don't think the writer would have any valid way to know if that's so. It seems likely that depiction of Peterson's audience arises from speculation filtered though a specific bias on the part of the writer.

The third sentence:

Peterson has used the platform he has built to publicly promote misogynistic, homophobic, transphobic, and occasionally even white supremacist ideas.

... is the writer asserting his/her own interpretations and misgivings as the actual "gospel truth" of the matter. Personally I don't find adequate reason to think any of those terms is applicable to Peterson.

Personally I find evidence of considerable rationality and integrity in Peterson's approach to any topic. I see evidence in his videos of one willing to go to great lengths to investigate an issue and to think about it with honesty, and to take great care to speak only what he truly believes to be true to whatever degree that's possible.

--hobie