When a person says "my outlook is just a part of my wiring", it typically leads to using one's "nature" as an excuse to either get out of doing something
oh honey, I'm just a guy, you can't expect me to really listen to you or talk about my feelings!
or to categorize people for the purpose of marginalizing them
Of course a woman can't be a CEO, women get all emotional and can't really handle math, it's just their nature
In these two cases, one's "nature" (being male or female) actually has nothing at all to do with their ability to talk about feelings, listen when someone is talking, being emotional at work, or doing math. That's called a "non-sequitor" logical fallacy. It means to connect two unrelated issues. If you want to talk about how difficult it is to pee standing up or whether a person can carry a fetus to term, then their gender would be relevant and actually influence the topic at hand.
So when a person, such as Mono, says "it's part of my monogamous nature that I have this particular worldview", this brings up those two issues. Mono could be dismissing his own responsibility by chalking things up to his "nature" when it really isn't relevant at all to whether or not he views something as "new-agey", or he could be marginalizing an entire category of people.
Or maybe he, personally, isn't *trying* to do either, but making statements like this encourage a general societal acceptance of both marginalizing categories of people and avoiding personal responsibility.
Therefore, Ceoli is attempting to discuss the greater issue that Mono happened to be the person to bring up - it isn't personal because she's discussing the topic. If anyone else happened to make the same argument, Ceoli's stance would be the same. It's not an attack against Mono, it's a position against the argument that he happened to bring up. And that is that one's monogamousness isn't related to one's spiritual outlook, so we should all take care not to make false connections like that.