To clarify: why is it considered genocide if only one town's male population was killed? It pales in comparison to Porajmos and Holocaust, for example.
Really not looking to start a fight here, I'm genuinely curious.
Because the Genocide Convention doesn't require the population to be killed entirely, "in part" is enough.
Another way to look at it is that the sociological concept of genocide and the legal one, while overlapping heavily, are not quite the same thing. Sociologically, the Holocaust as a whole is "a genocide". However, for a court, that's not useful - they need to be able to prosecute people for individual acts of genocide.