Yeah, every anti-natalist I've ever read or spoken with cared much more about "overpopulation" than the issue of consent at being brought into existence. Anti-natalism is without any doubt very strongly tied to malthusian nonsense even if some of the more philosophically educated among them like to couch it in terms of sentience and consent. To think otherwise is to completely misunderstand the movement.

Edit to clarify: I know that there are plenty of people who exist who hold the position that what is problematic is that life inherently involves suffering and so bringing it about is causing suffering which is immoral. I'm even somewhat sympathetic to that view even if I don't agree with the very premise of it. But I've (personally, anecdotally) never seen those people refer to themselves as anti-natalist. However those who have self described as anti-natalist and certainly any of them who considered themselves part of a movement were eco-fash adjacent malthusians. The overall anti-natalist movement is deeply entwined with and cannot be separated from malthusianism.

DB might be the most big-name modern antinatalist, but he doesn't speak for the view in its entirety. In fact, I would consider him to be under the cynical misanthrope label for just the reasons you describe.

I am sympathetic to the antinatalist viewpoint but have zero sympathy for malthusianism or eugenics. My sympathy for antinatalism comes more from what Schopenhauer suggests rather than Benetar's bullshit. Ironically, I think there is sort of a logical fork between antinatalism and transhumanism where it is at least extremely difficult to counter the purely antinatalist view without relying on the (to be clear, very real) possibility that we can change what it means to be human on a fundamental level in order to make it better (and yes, this could only be meaningfully accomplished in a socialist society, it would be a eugenic nightmare under capitalism).