She claims that one goal of the GC movement, or at least, one of her goals, is to "reduce the number of people who transition".

How is that the same as wanting to kill/exterminate/eliminate people like you?

There are many people who think society and individuals within society would be better off if "we" reduced the number of people who

• smoke tobacco
• are addicted to alcohol and drugs
• get cancer
• live in poverty
• suffer sexual abuse and exploitation
• die in mass shootings
• contract HIV-AIDS
• experience racism, homophobia and/or misogyny
• have need of an abortion
• commit crimes of violence
• are abusive to others
• start wars
• cheat on their taxes
• follow the Church of Scientology
• force women and girls should to adhere to Islamic veiling customs
• And so on.
  

Saying it would be good thing to reduce the numbers of people who suffer from painful conditions and experience trauma and distress, or who engage in a particular activity that has negative effects, is not the same as advocating the elimination and extermination of those people.

I would like to reduce the number of people who suffer from suicidal ideation and urges, and who die of suicide. That does not mean I want to kill everyone who is severely clinically depressed or see them killed. It means the opposite, in fact.

But speaking of elimination and extermination, on the other thread we conversed on recently you repeatedly said it's perfectly fine if the medical interventions done to give the impression of "gender transition" on children, adolescents and young adults with sex and gender distress result in them being sterile and thus unable to have their own children. You're the one advocating that trans-identified people be rendered unable to reproduce by subjecting them to de facto eugenics, not GC. If you had a broader understanding of history and were familiar with the mechanism by which many antibiotics and pesticides work, maybe you'd grasp what you're championing.