You're right, but liberal framing around issues like these is surprisingly similar to what is here written as the reactionary framing (I would argue that outside of the teleology in the first sentence, it's more accurate to the liberal framing and the reactionary one would be moralizing about the "sin" of choosing to be a sub), and it's just sort of been perpetuated because it's so ubiquitous in advocacy. Many people are thereby inclined (I guess ultimately because of legal precedent) to say that something is fine because it's part of the person's inherent nature and therefore defend things as being inherent, rather than just saying that it's fine whether it is inherent or not as long as it isn't hurting anyone.