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