She seens to conflate bias and neutrality, switiching between both at times, at others not.

Here she sees the distinction:

«I can acknowledge that my perspective is informed by my experiences and my reality while still maintaining rigorous standards for evidence and argumentation.»

And here not:

«When someone says you're biased against them because you object to their stated goal of removing you from society, they're not actually asking for fairness – they're demanding complicity.»

Of course one can be biased in one's attitude/opinions and at the same time ponder them and those of the opponent from a neutral point of view, that is, weighing the pros and cons. That's why juridcal procedures evolved and have their rules. That's why a "fact" is a "factum", somethig made, viz., information subsumed under certain rules to create a certain pattern which is at a struggle with some other proposals in which most often the same information is subsumed under slightly or grossly different rules to create rather different patterns, which is why there is always a judge necessary in the procedure to weigh the different proposals of subsumption and annoucne a decision.

(Often, the question which proposal supersedes (not: is true) is a matter of lobbying and pressuring the "judge". And let us not forget that that is most often one's own mind doing the pressure game, as we repeat and mimick both roles, that of proponent and opponent, and that of the judge. Which is why we ourselves stay in our mind bubbles, as all three roles merge in our daily practice of "rationality". Averting cognitive dissonance is thus more important to us than to be right or true to the facts. Every conspiracy theory will serve that purpose.)

So, indeed I think that in a sense she is making up a straw man, declaring an enabled assault on her life a matter of cognitive dissonance and rule of the more powerful. That does not negate her being part of a persecuted minority but it negates that there is room for argumentative combat. In fact, she demands the same right to be a jerk that her assailant are, enjoy, and insist to be. And why shouldn't she?