Could those things lead to genocide? Yes, absolutely. But It depends completely on the scale of such activities.
Dropping birth rates by a third by forced sterilization is a pretty big fucking scale. What do you call it when policies are pursued to aggressively drop birth rates whilst simultanously spiking the death rate of a native ethnicity, whilst moving in settlers of a different ethnicity into the region and suppressing the native ethnicity's culture?
It would be like arguing that there was no genocide of Native Americans in the USA because the Native American population grew over the course of the USA's existence.
But my broader point is this: Is it genocide apologia to acknowledge the events that are happening, condemn them, but question whether they meet the definition? That seems like a stretch. This is a semantic discussion, not a moral one.
If someone denied the current stage of the genocide in Palestine, would you question whether that was genocide apologia? If they said, like some mealy-mouthed mainstream Dem, that what Israel was doing was bad but refused to append any label to the ongoing murder of Palestinian civilians (including the label of 'murder' or 'civilian'), would you regard that as just a 'semantic discussion', and not a moral one?
What words we use matter. Words have power. Words have meaning.
But this question of what is or isn’t a genocide has become a litmus test for whether you belong to the good tribe or the bad one, so people react so emotionally that it’s hard to have this conversation.
The reason it's become a 'litmus test' is because we generally agree in the modern day that genocide is bad. Thus, campists of either side must deny genocide when it's 'their side', but can freely celebrate 'bad camp' performing genocide as proof of their badness.
It's no different than accusations of authoritarianism. The issue is not that authoritarianism is more widely recognized; the issue is that authoritarianism continues to be denied when it is convenient for campists to do so.