Should Straight Cis White Men Be Praised for Being Non-Violent?

Seeing that according to some parts of the media (e.g. The Guardian, The New York Times, CNN and The Independent) it's apparently in our nature to be violent?

If we're the group most likely to be violent and abusive, then aren't straight cis white men who *don't* commit acts of violence and abuse, such as myself, acting *against* our fundamental nature (which, obviously, requires an act of significant effort on any animal's part)? And aren't individuals who commit acts of violence, DESPITE belonging to supposedly 'innocent' and 'non-violent' demographics (e.g. women, gay people, trans people etc), WORSE than the norm, since their behaviour goes *against* their intrinsic nature?

Sorry for this overload of LOGIC, REASON and RATIONAL, but if anyone is fucking STUPID enough to posit the idea that people are or aren't violent according to immutable characteristics like race, gender/sex, sexuality and so on, then it stands to reason that we should take that argument to its logical conclusion and interrogate it. If straight cis men are intrinsically 'violent', then surely straight cis men who *aren't* violent are *particularly* commendable for avoiding such behaviour. My 'sincere' apologies for the 'misogynist' implications of such a logical, reasonable and rational extrapolation (although I recognise that some of you, perhaps because of the demographic you belng to, don't do logic, reason and rational-thinking...)