I don't know why society would need to be "designed" the way you are describing it.

I don't mean “designed” in the sense of a central committee planning everything, but in the sense that you have an idea in your head of what society would be like, and more broadly that anti-civ supporters have a shared idea in their heads of what society would be like.

They want to abandon all modern technology because they see it as something that will kill everyone. If you think the needs of a few outweigh the lives of everyone then I don't know what to say.

I think it's a false dichotomy, yeah. I think the solution is not to abandon those who can't look after themselves or otherwise have a greater reliance on technology, but to alter society to the point that it won't kill everyone. I bring it up because I think that, in this regard, primitivism and anti-civ are functionally identical — bear with me and I'll explain.

I would consider them to be privileged compared to those that do not.

Sure, but the meaningful comparison here isn't between trans people who have access to HRT and trans people who don't. It's between trans people (who to a greater or lesser extent require certain technologies) and cis people (who don't, and therefore consider them unimportant). The privilege in this case is living a life where HRT is not necessary/desirable and deciding that a society where HRT is not available is acceptable for everyone.

That depends on how you're using centralization I suppose. I am not referring to a group of people collaborating.

The history of modern technology is literally the history of civilization. They're not separable; you can't have one without the other. Modern civilization would be unsustainable without technology, and modern technology would be unsustainable without civilization.

I have already told you that this isn't the case. … Keeping all of the benefits would be fucking great, but that simply isn't feasible at this point in time.

This is … exactly my point though. You say it's “not feasible” to keep all the benefits, and so you don't even want to try. And yet, you seem to believe that it is even possible to live without the benefits, despite the fact that for many people it's not. And then you hand-wave the criticisms away by claiming we'd be able to keep some of the benefits, you know, the ones that lead to people calling you genocidal, ableist, etc.; just enough to separate you from the bad primitivists.

You've got to decide, basically. Is anti-civ going to keep modern technology? If yes, then you need to keep civilization. If no, then you're primitivists and therefore you're genocidal. You seem to want to have it both ways; to reject the trappings of primitivism so that you can avoid the accusations of genocide/privilege, while accepting their basic assumption that it's possible to live without “civilization”, and being unable to provide a workable model to show how anti-civ would not be genocidal, ableist, transphobic, or misogynist.