I think you're confusing my personal viewpoint with my observation on what Google appears to have done in this specific context.

But for what it's worth, in the specific question of trans individuals, my personal view point is that majorities have been wrong before, and there's no reason to believe they wouldn't be wrong again. This is one of those times. Trans exclusionism doesn't pass the "Do not ban that which is not harmful to others" sniff test for freedom-oriented society.

But again, my personal viewpoint doesn't rule the Google corporation's decisions. However, we shouldn't be surprised when a company that has positioned itself to be clearly trans-inclusive doesn't find somebody who denies the dignity of trans people acceptable on their ethics board.

You are missing the forest for the trees. The commenters above are trying to articulate that ultimately, you are okay with a group of people shutting down a discussion if the views of the participants involved don't align with their own. You seem to have strong opinions regarding how this can apply to discussions about trans issues, which is fine, but you are still saying that if someone doesn't hold an opinion you agree with, then it's perfectly okay to prevent them from participating.

What's the point of a discussion if the only people that are allowed to participate all agree on everything?

I think the trees are really significant here because the other commenters are trying to generalize an instance that can't be generalized without discarding significant details. To give a concrete example of how that over-generalization is incorrect: Kay Cole James hasn't even been shut down. She's welcome to participate in the public discussion of AI and ethics. On her own platform. Over there. Which is what James has done in the past and is welcome to continue to do, without the implicit imprimatur of having her views taken seriously by an ethics board for one of the largest software engineering companies in the world.

Being barred from speaking is entirely different from being denied a seat at someone's table. Or are we also upset that The Heritage Foundation doesn't have Miss Major Griffin-Gracy on their experts panel?