No, because not all ethical view points are equivalent or interchangeable. And we're not talking about any old ethics board, we're talking about an ethics board at Google, which goes out of its way to be trans inclusive.
Can we then sum up your stance in two statements:
1: not all ethics viewpoints are equal, and yours are superior
2: in this instance, you believe that the above opposed viewpoint does not deserve any representation at an ethics board, even if it is represents a significant population of the US and the world?
Is that correct? This is your stance?
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.
What's the point of a discussion if the only people that are allowed to participate all agree on everything?
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?