I do agree that a committee likely won't be able to make meaningful progress if their views differ on too low a level. I also suspect we would both agree that

I do agree that a committee likely won't be able to make meaningful progress if their views differ on too low a level. I also suspect we would both agree that an ethics committee whose members don't hold views on human dignity that are reasonably similar to our own won't arrive at results that are useful to us personally (due to that difference in fundamental values). I also (as previously noted) would agree that people with an established history of forwarding logically faulty arguments aren't going to prove useful and thus have no place on an ethics committee. Where I disagree is your implication that her views are somehow opposed to our shared societal understanding (as Americans or westerners or whatever) of human dignity. Since I don't know her personally I suppose they might well be, but if so I've yet to see evidence of it. What I see is an increasingly polarized rhetoric in the media on a number of topics. Unfortunately, that currently seems to extend to characterizing people who don't wholeheartedly agree with trans activists or who raise even reasonable questions about these things as being somehow immoral or unethical people. Such behavior seems to me only to stifle any useful discourse on the topic, drive people farther apart, and to actively push views on both sides towards ever farther extremes. (As an aside, that last paragraph would seem to fit almost as well in any of the Facebook regulation threads of late. Looking at the history of the early 1900s, I honestly have to wonder if social media is really what's causing all these problems, including the one being discussed here, or if it simply makes visible the extreme polarization that currently exists.)