The small number of transitioners relative to the overall population does, indeed, mean that it would be cruel to consider typical cis people as a group equivalent to trans people. Again, people feel things, not groups. Any tradeoff that necessarily balances the suffering of cis people against trans people should not balance the rates at the same level--let's say 5% each--because that would result in way, way more people suffering.

Same deal with transitioners and detransitioners.

Ideally, we will find ways to avoid a tradeoff. If there's no other option, then we aim for the least suffering overall, not matched rates across groups. Of course, humans are extremely good at discounting the suffering of "the other" (i.e. not their own group), so tradeoffs like that need to be made with a very high degree of scrutiny.

The attitudes of scorn and hatred towards detransitioners from trans people, when they happen, are as unconscionable and shocking as attitudes of scorn and hatred towards trans people from others.

We should try to take care of people, as individuals, full stop. (Care mostly means helping them when they need help and otherwise empowering them to make their own decisions and to be able to contribute to the rest of society.)

Phrasing that makes it sound like people who definitely need help in some way are equivalent to another postulated or much rarer group is contrary to the goal of taking care of people, because you're making it seem like the needs of that group isn't real or can be ignored. Phrasing that sounds like the even rarer group doesn't exist or doesn't matter is also contrary to the goal of taking care of people as individuals.

The semantic critique was patronizing because you were equating things that aren't similar. Maybe I should have been more charitable regarding possible misstatements and clumsy turns of phrase.