I should maybe not comment on this thread, but there are a few of your claims that I think needs to be adressed:
When you make claims about research, I can not help but to put on my academical glasses and ask: what research are you referring to? You had a conversation at the YWCA where you both agree that PTSD is a different animal than the phases you go through when traumatized? I am not sure I follow, and where is the research behind that claim? It sounds to me like it is a matter of oppinion that you both agreed on.
I am well aware that you can be traumatized and not develop PTSD. Is that what you are reffering to? However, as little as we can diagnose if someone has PTSD, can we diagnose if someone is 'just' going through phases of healing and has not developed PTSD.
Research (and science) is not an absolute truth. It is a paradigm that can change, develop and even be abandoned if new research is made. It is not stagnent, but vibrent.
I am not sure either what you mean by ' giving PTSD another name'. The name is, as everything to do with languages, constructed, so we know what we are talking about. We could all agree to call it 'FLEMST' but that does not change the traits of the condition :-)
I told her about this forum and the most upsetting thing is coming across women who have been sexual abused or assaulted and are just labeled as PTSD. because once they are labeled with PTSD they think that they are stuck and won't ever get better.
I have an opposite perception of this: I generally find that peoples diagnosis-stories are quite valid, i.e. they are not 'just labeled', and I do not percieve assaulted women (or men) on this forum as having such an attitude towards their PTSD. On the contrary. But even if they did, PTSD is still a fact, no matter what you call it, and I believe everyone is free to deal with it their own way.
I hope you understand that I am not 'upset' by your post, and I am aware of your good intentions. I am simply questioning some of your claims.