I frequently see a similar argument about conversion therapy. A popular new idea for opposing legal bans on the practice is that it doesn't and cannot actually exist. The reasoning goes something like, "Homosexual orientation does not exist. It's an invalid or meaningless category of human experience premised on falacies. Ditto with gender identities outside the norm. One cannot change something that never actually existed in the first place, therefore "conversion therapy" is a meaninglese term. Banning a meaningless practice is absurd."

Esther Spurrill-Jones just wrote about a conversion therapist who is suing in federal court over a ban on conversion therapy in his state. He argues that his practices should not be banned, using the logic I cited above.

Increasingly, those who want conversion therapy to continue existing use similar logic.