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.