overconsumption of sugars is much more directly linked to type 2 diabetes than meat consumption

... Duh? Everyone knows that. You're talking about logical fallacies and then going on to an irrelevant whataboutism.

• Red meat has a higher association with CVD, CVD subtypes (e.g. stroke), and diabetes.
• Total incidence of cancer in a plant-based diet is 15% lower than an omnivorous one. (same meta-analysis finds 25% reduced risk of CAD in vegetarians)
• Here's a collection of meta-analyses and systemic reviews showing this association over and over and over again from just the last decade alone.

If you want to hide your head in the sand over unprocessed red meat "only" being a Group 2A carcinogen (processed meat is Group 1 and has been since 2015, meaning definitively causing cancer; in that sense, those hot dogs on the left are causally linked to cancer), be my guest. Doesn't change the reality that eating red meat for some strange reason I guess we'll never know significantly elevates risk for at least four of the leading causes of death in the developed world.

Edit: And if this is supposed to be some false dichotomy where eating meat is the lesser evil because anything else would risk diabetes from carbohydrate overconsumption, have I got some interesting news for you.

Interventional studies have shown that vegetarian diets, especially a vegan diet, are effective tools in glycemic control and that these diets control plasma glucose to a greater level than do control diets, including diets traditionally recommended for patients with diabetes

Guess the American Diabetes Association just hasn't seen this 1946 poster yet, or they'd understand.