Yes, that was part of the argument, but not the core part, sorry if that was distracting. Social-sexual interaction really clouds all the preassociations people have with dance and layers in a shame element. Dance as a proxy/secondary sexual fitness characteristic creates a false conditional associated with its absence.

I should have emphasized more that even when performed in isolation, dance won't necessarily tap emotional pathways that aren't pre-wired or preconditioned. Proprioceptive sensitivity, exertion (endorphin sensitivity), even aerobic fitness will have a large effect on efficacy of this proposed emotional regulatory effect, and those are largely genetically pre-determined. Some people just won't benefit much from it and shouldn't be shamed if it doesn't "fix them", as if they aren't in touch with themselves or "close minded". Maybe being jaded by stuff like this is making me sound "red-pilly". I'll have to be more careful, thanks for that. There have been lots of pop psychology "cures" like these. "Scream Therapy" comes to mind from the eighties. Varied success, really depending on the individual.

All that to say: If it works for you, great. But don't make people do it and then shame them when they aren't magically fixed. (I know that's not what you, particularly, are saying)

Which part? That people can be different? I know religion and sexuality can be triggering, so there's some risk drawing parallels there, granted. Maybe a less controversial comparison might be "an ear for music" or a "sense of direction"? Something with a both nature and nurture components.