Gun control groups, including the Brady Center, Giffords, and others, are apparently making the claim in a Supreme Court case involving the state of Tennessee that somehow, making children transgender will reduce gun violence.
This, in a case involving the state that had Audrey Hale, transgender youth, shoot up an elementary school--and four months prior to the law taking effect? Seems there is a wee little problem with their logic, to put it mildly. Tennessee did indeed have a school shooting by someone who considered herself transgender in a time when reassignment procedures were legal in Tennessee. (OK, she was 28, too, so she still had access to these procedures if she'd wanted them...)
I guess there probably is some reality to the notion that if you castrate a lot of boys, sooner or later you're bound to drop testosterone in one boy that will decide not to shoot up his school because of reduced aggression, but with about 40 school shootings per year, you're talking about castrating 50,000 young men for every school shooting prevented. Seems like just a bit of overkill!
Plus, those who watch the "trans mafia" realize that some pretty vicious aggression from trans advocates is quite routine. I'm not quite sure we can assume--as our ancestors in the 19th century did--that removal of male attributes will reduce male aggression.
