I struggle with anti-natalism sometimes.
I am, notably, not an anti-natalist, and I don't think I'll ever declare myself as such. But its premises are often attractive. Unlike the person rambling about how its an apparently illogical belief, I believe there is a logic and an ethos to it.
Anti-Natalism sees the non-consensuality of birth as problematic, but not necessarily in an already living person choosing to continue to live. Many of them are inevitably quite okay with suicide, even "mass suicide", but not genocide; genocide is markedly unconsensual.
Many of them do continue to keep living, even if this may to some extent be irrational in their own world-view. Though, many of them rationalize it as being part of their effort to make living more worthwhile. To be kind and good to people, to lessen the overall suffering that they see as so central to the way the world is.
But again, I don't really think anti-natalism is correct. Firstly and mainly, anti-natalism makes a mistake in the logical inconsistency that you cannot ask someone who does not exist if they want to live or not-live. This "person" is totally hypothetical, totally virtual. If this unreal-person responded that they did want to be born, then it would be unconsensual, or at least immoral, theoretically, to not bring them into existence. But, of course, no such person exists.
To answer the other questions though, I don't plan to have children (though thats also a dysphoria thing) and if I end up wanting them I will adopt. So many lost souls in the world, I do not want to bring more in quite yet.