“(Note: Peterson was willing to address individuals by their chosen pronouns, but was not willing to be forced to do so by law.)”
Why should I “note” that? What difference does that make to the stance that he’s taking against compelled PC speech? I don’t really like the implication of that line ... that folks should be more supportive of him because absent these rules he’d voluntarally go along with using those pronouns, and by extension, one who is not inclined to support these pronouns is less deserving of being supported for taking a stand against their compelled usage.
It has nothing to do with who is more or less deserving of support. That is an inference you are drawing on your own, not one that his fairly implied by the article.
It has to do with providing clarity as to what his position actually is. He is not against the use of those pronouns, but rather against government compulsion to do so. Whether a particular reader believes one or the other is the stance more worthy of defense really doesn't enter into it. They just don't want to misrepresent his position, so they add the "note". Else, someone is going to refer to him misleadingly as the guy who refuses to use those pronouns.
There is a vast gulf between being forced by the state to do a thing and in being kind and respectful to an individual by using their preferred pronoun even if you disagree with them.