It's incredibly unfortunate that anyone could be stubborn enough to not consider "suicide prevention" a sufficient reason.

As a rhetorical strategy, bringing suicide into an argument in a way that pressures the other person to comply has to be amongst the most contemptible forms of moral coercion.

Oh, why? Because it clearly shows the horrible consequences of decisions you align with?

Trans people have above-average suicide rates. Gender-affirming care is one of the only proven ways we can reduce these rates. If this makes you uncomfortable, consider that the issue might not be on my side.

Adult men have high suicide risk, due in large part to loneliness and low self esteem, but no one would suggest that women have an obligation to pretend all men they meet are sexy and desirable. Broadly, culture should not be manipulated by a small cohort holding themselves hostage. Coercive threats like "if you don't give me this job I will shoot myself" or "if you don't affirm Christ is our Savior I have a high chance of suicide btw" (or the third party proxied version like you posted) are not compatible with liberal society.

People who destroy any chance of productive discussion by creating ridiculous strawmen are not compatible with liberal society.

Leftists who pretend not to understand things as a form of argumentation, also

I simply don't consider "if you don't do this I will kill myself" to be an appropriate argument to make me do something. I don't accept moral culpability for that outcome. It is unfortunate for them that they cannot be what they want to be, but that does not put the onus on me to pretend they are that thing.

Society does not have an obligation to say falsehoods under duress. I think you'll probably agree with me for most other thought experiment examples I could come up with where people would need to collectively say what they don't believe lest the aggrieved party hurt themselves.

> I simply don't consider "if you don't do this I will kill myself" to be an appropriate argument to make me do something.

Woah, not even one sentence in, and you're already pretending to lack the ability to properly read my words. I genuinely have no idea how any form of productive conversation could be possible.

You are just proxying the quoted argument indirectly to make it sound less coercive, but the end result is the same: I should do something, and not be "stubborn", because it reduces risk of suicides, which is "sufficient reason". Whether the suicider is in the first or third person, or whether they are an individual or an aggregate statistic, is irrelevant.

- Society should do something because it reduces risk of suicide in this group

- I should do something because it reduces risk of suicide in this group <-- you are here

- I should do something because it reduces risk of suicide to this person

- I should do something because if I don't there's a high risk this person will kill themselves

- I should do something because if I don't this person credibly says they will kill themselves <-- my post

- I should do something because this person is truly mentally ill and if I don't they definitely will kill themselves

These are all the same argument. You are being disingenuous. Your post says that "'Suicide prevention' is a sufficient reason [to call a female a man]." What exactly were you implying then if not that I should do something because otherwise someone might kill themselves? You are uncomfortable with me clarifying your position in more direct verbiage; that is the insidiousness of your position: it only sounds nice when you ignore its implications.