I quoted what you wrote, responded to it directly, and in case you forgot, you wrote, "upping the rhetoric WILL MEAN GENOCIDE", which is pretty clearly a charge of genocide, no?
You didn't couch it in tentative language ("could lead to genocide").
My entire point is about being able to talk about what is bad without characterizing it as the worst thing possible. It is because I am concerned for the safety of trans people that I am making this point.
Wrong way to run a society (intentionally chosen to not parallel trans issues too closely):
A: Your hat is blocking my view.
B: A's committing VIOLENCE against me!
A: B's ABOUT TO MURDER ME!!!!!
(Violence ensues, either because A is "defending" themselves from B, or B now views A as an imminent threat and is "defending" themselves from A.)
Better way:
A: Your hat is blocking my view.
B: I have high skin-cancer risk. I need it for sun protection.
A: *moves, grumbling about how B should have a smaller hat anyway*
Also less bad:
A: Your hat is blocking my view.
B: A's committing VIOLENCE against me!
A: No, and I don't intend to, but I can't see and it's your fault.
There's plenty to say against Knowles. For example: here's an area where tensions run high, where violence and threats of violence have happened, where you have an audience and a perfect opportunity to repudiate violence while not conceding any part of your position and instead you...quibble about whether "genocide" would be the etymologically correct term in case of mass murder, instead?!
In the very most generous interpretation this is an egregious dereliction of responsible behavior, and anything less that the most generous interpretation makes him an instigator of a hate crime if anything happens.
It's really easy to say something like, "They think I was calling for genocide?! Let me be very clear. I do not endorse genocide. I do not endorse violence of any kind. I only endorse [whatever he does endorse]." That he wasn't able to bring himself to do something like that is a serious condemnation of his character, and legitimately raises questions about whether he is okay with violence as a means to achieve his stated ends--or whether he's just okay with any violence-disposed members of his audience feeling vindicated and thereby empowered.
It's not genocide, but it's absolutely sliding towards terrorism. That's exactly what terrorism is: achieving political or social aims by making others legitimately fear violence.
Being fed up with, disgusted by, and feeling threatened by this kind of behavior is entirely appropriate.
However, it doesn't follow either that it will lead to genocide, or that it doesn't matter what he means by "transgenderism".