This post illustrates a logical fallacy found in the set "fallacies of relevance", from its subset "irrelevant appeals", specifically the "appeal to pity". It's a favourite among lawyers and politicians.

Doesn't necesarily invalidate how she felt in her frustration and feelings of helplesness. Putting a label on something does not invalidate it.

This is a common skeptic tactic. Defining something by tactic or example automaticly invalidates the argument by inference.