There is no authoritative body on the definitions of words. More generally, if genocide can mean "not killling, but very bad" then it is not much use except as an epithet - a negatively-loaded bomb to be lobbed in partisan debates at people who you think are doing something very bad. Virtually every controversial policy could be described as, "Causing serious bodily or mental harm to" some group.

That article IIc pivots on the key phrase "physical destruction".

Look, internment isnt good either, why dig in your heels on the most loaded possible word?

It's absolutely not. There's a reason US propaganda under Pompeo had to manufacture and launder reports with tortured legal interpretation to try to get the genocide label to stick but couldn't because there's no intent to destroy, hence useful idiots trying to be pedantic and argue how enforcing family planning reflect intention even though that applied to Han majority, or mass (temporary) internment / inflicting "pain" somehow equivalent to physical destruction while population continues to grow.

Modern definition of genocide at UN explicitly wouldn't categorize what PRC is doing in XJ - cultural genocide - because members, especially west went out of their way to ensure cultural genocide would have little legal ramifications, otherwise Canada would have been sanctioned to death for self professed cultural genocide a few years ago. Incidentally the entire reason Pompeo tried to propagandize genocide label was because it would trigger diplomatic ramifications at UN. What the PRC is doing in XJ is cultural genocide, and bluntly that’s permissible thanks to lobbying from the west.

The entire manufactured genocide narrative is so retarded because if PRC wanted to, they could just... commit genocide. At PRC scale they can wipe out the 12M Uyghurs in a few weekends on the cheap instead of wasting trillions of RMB trying to sinicize them.