I didn't deny that there's "an epidemic of violence against the transgender community," so I'm having trouble figuring out how you comment relates to what I said.
All I did was call attention to the terminology we use to describe it, and suggested that perhaps using a term that more clearly applies to the situation might help persuade fence-sitters to take the issue more seriously instead of rolling their eyes as soon as they hear "genocide," which if you haven't noticed, is what most people seem to do.
Did you provide a standard accepted definition of genocide that rules out limiting its applicability to instances in which the violence is targeted toward an ethnic group or some other sort of inherited identity? Because if you did include that somewhere in your comment, I must have missed it.
Or did you present an argument for why we should consider it a genocide even if the demographic group/trait isn't based on genetics or heritage, despite the root genos?
Because unless you did either of those things, I think you entirely missed the point of what I was saying and should go back and reread my original comment if you want to continue this conversation.
Preaching to the choir is only good for virtue signaling, not persuasion. And if we want to help trans people by improving society's outlook towards them, then we need to persuade people to care.