A few thoughts

1. So a Christian school does not want their students to dance. One of the students dances at a public school prom. He gets suspended from the school.
a. The ostensible purpose of the policy is to prevent lustful influences. Rather than training the students to deal with lust in an appropriate manner, they put gendered contact under the same category as rebellion (rock music). As with many restrictions, the underlying goal is control, inside and outside the school.
b. The stricter rule does not the better person make, necessarily. Some people cleave unto rules as a pinprick of sense in a balloon of a world, internalizing them. Some people cleave to the group, but disregard the rules, finding ways to get their rock music, handholding, and "worse." Then some people exist in some intermediary state, confused by the rules but not knowing how to resist them simply because they don't know anything else except through a TV. There is naivete, and there is social impairment.
c. And of course part of me scoffs at the pretension of such rules. There were some hardline Church members in the medieval period that might've rather people didn't dance or marry or have sex ever. But they were smarter, because they realized that people do things beyond their control, and the choice is not between preventing and allowing, but between excluding and
accepting. The people would find a way to do what they want anyhow. So they incorporate some of the pagan holidays, help administer wedding vows, develop songs, allow a Virgin Mary cult for those who incline toward a goddess, and hold festivals wherein some people dance. The greater power does not waste time preventing in vain, but accepts enough that they can afford to exclude stickier practices like actually worshipping other gods.
2. Two people get married. The state figures out that one of the people, professing to be female, was born male. Their marriage is declared void.
a. If someone really feels like being a male or a female, why should I bother convincing him/her otherwise? Yes, they might have one X and one Y chromosome, or two X chromosomes, or even two X and one Y or any other fun combinations. These chromosomes do not always correspond to the parts people have, as an XY embryo which does not generate or recognize its own testosterone will develop into a female, for example. Finally, with modern medical technology, we have the ability to change those parts and supplement the change with hormonal infusions. Whether we may like it or not, the man who thinks he is a woman can get all the equipment to make herself so.
b. We're very ill-equipped to handle transsexual issues. In the newspaper article describing the officers determining the person's sex, they have male officers pat down where they suspect a penis, and female officers pat down the breasts. The disparity does not seem geared to the comfort of the person being patted down (why would the switch matter) so much as the people doing the patting, who wouldn't want to feel a contradiction. (There's a good article on the subject about a gender-switcher from the seventeenth century. I can't find it now though.)
c. We want to be able to know that a person is this or that, one or the other. Thus anything that contradicts easy identification is bewildering, like Pat from SNL. We fix the easiest practical way of telling someone's sex. Clothes normally suffice even today, supplemented by ideas about a person's body (are there breasts? hips? facial hair?). If such markers can change, then one cannot tell with certainty. Why do we have to know, and why is the risk of getting it wrong so horrible?
d. One reason why they do need to know is because there is a little amendment which was added a couple of years back about homosexual marriage in Tennessee. In order to judge same-sex marriage, there must be a standard concerning sex. If that standard is dismantled, then the law is weakened.
e. It also stands as a challenge to gender. If women do one thing and men do another contrary to one another, then if anyone is able to change their behavior, what does that mean for the old absolutes? I don't think gender is a bad thing except when people use it to make incorrect and offensive conclusions. Most people act mostly like some form of their apparent genders, myself included. But it shouldn't be some great excluder, whether in household chores or hobbies. My acting differently should not make another suspicious that I'm gender-confused, and such gender-confusion should not convince them that I might be homosexual.
3. I like cookies.