In some extreme cases, it may turn out that a country is attempting to reduce a particular population by providing what appears as benefits. Probably free condoms are far too voluntary and ineffectual to come even close, but still - if anyone attempted it with the distinct intent of reducing some specific population, it could be somewhere in the neighborhood of ethnic cleansing.

I'd say there's a clear distinction with condoms around reversibility. You have to affirmatively choose to use a condom every time you have sex.

If the government were giving out free vasectomies or tubal ligations to certain ethnic groups and not others, that would be a wildly different story.

No, I don't conflate the two at all.

I'm simply saying that by the U.N.'s definition of “genocide”, handing out condoms can be construed as such, and that the definition is therefore not worth much, or rather, that following it's definition, genocide is not problematic per sē, as it does not necessarily involve the involuntary taking of human life.

Only if "committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group".

Free condom initiatives typically do not have that intent.