Imagine one year later if there were a violent crime problem, and the State determined (quite reasonably) that the perpetrators were mostly men. Let’s further imagine the State showed lowering testosterone in men reduced their tendency toward violence (I don’t know if this is really true, but stick with me.) The State might make a law requiring all men to inject a medicine that reduced testosterone for the good of society. If you refused, people could say: “Are you really choosing “muh freedom” over ending domestic violence, murder and rape?” It would be the same principle and, having already conceded your rights, you would be powerless to resist. So long as those in power deemed something in the public interest, the individual would have no defense.

https://chrisliss.substack.com/p/interview-with-a-murderer