my opinion on this topic is irrelevant. But Google's opinion on who is on Google's AI ethics board matters very much, and it appears some things are settled questions for Google. Such as the humanity and dignity of trans individuals.
I don't accept people who advocate suppressing the rights of trans people as members of society. I'm fine if you judge me for that or think I'm moralizing, because I am. I can live with that.
In almost all political disagreement there is underlying fear or concern being unaddressed. Simply shutting people out only amply it further.
For example, a very common topic in practically all discussion around trans right in the US is the issue around toilets. An obvious solution to it is unisex toilets, but the right never accepted it and the left abandoned it so it is now a centrism political view. When it comes to both the left and the right, it seems to exist a fear that unisex bathroom are more likely to cause crime, through there is no data to actually support it. Thus rather than settle the issue, they fight over it.
If we could convince both side, maybe by using data from countries which overwhelming use unisex bathrooms, we could settle those fears.
You see, this is the difference between us: I do accept you in my society despite my believing that anyone who believes they have the right to determine whether someone should belong or not in their society based solely on their own beliefs is not worthy of the air they breathe.
I do consider myself morally and intellectually superior but I do fight for you to have the same rights as me and everyone else despite that and I welcome your dissent.
Do we really need to play facts <-> opinion?
In a discussion about ethics you include as many viewpoints possible or it become dishonest immediately.
You are not a priest or something like that. It has taken too long to accept premised authority.