For the most part I'd agree with this, but you might be underplaying her skepticism a little by saying she isn't arguing "poor representations of women in games make people harm women in real life".
She certainly is arguing that poor representations of women in games contributes to general atmosphere that ends up resulting in tox... uh, I better avoid academic jargon that's widely (deliberately?) misunderstood here.. behaviors by many that are harmful to women. She also points out I believe that such tropes tend to put off many women, who would otherwise be much more confortable dropping $60 on your latest blockbuster, but feel excluded from the non-casual space as a result.
But Sarkeesian is also clear that a few sexist tropes in games are not solely responsible for harm done to women, that they don't exist in a vaccuum, and that it's entirely possible to enjoy a game and find a few tropes in it a little dubious.
The biggest point I'd make to people who think, after being told by numerous YouTube "personalities" that Sarkeesian is an advocate of censorship, is that Sarkeesian's criticisms are constructive criticisms. She's not demanding bans or boycotts, she's saying "Hey, game developers, here's a few things you might want to avoid", and telling players "Listen, I know you love this game, just be aware of these issues when you play it."
(Game developers actually love her videos in my experience, which tells you all you need to know.)
Unfortunately, we don't live in a world where nuanced comments that are neither "BAN THIS!" nor "WE WANT MORE OF THIS!!" are understood. Most people seem to think that every argument has two sides, no more, no less.