It's where one person (me, in this case) asserts that X (possessiveness towards someone) is not Y (treating someone as property).
To which another person contests that Z (the text I have emboldened above) is Y (treating someone as property), and given that Z is Y, X must be Y because X and Z are the same - but of course this premise that they are the same is unproven.
In rhetoric, this is a useful tool because it diverts the audience's attention from the original argument to a more emotive argument which is difficult to contest.
I think the term for this specious line of reasoning is begging the question. If so, in this case Barb, you are guilty of begging the question that Z (what you wrote) is the same as X (possessiveness).