"The only "personal" component is that she discloses that she was a rape victim"
No, she said: "I have been sexually assaulted"
and since she clearly make the distinction between rape and sexual assault earlier in the post, she is cognizant of a distinction, and presumably choose her words adequately.
Not that the severity of the assault really matter here, but in view of the already wide liberty taken with the numbers and the facts, there is no need to distort the picture even further.
On the other hand she qualify it with 'survivor', and associate the term with every victims of sexual assaulted, which logically imply that every victim of sexual assault was also victim of attempted murder... Since that is clearly unsupported by the references given, I must conclude that this is merely a 'appeal to emotion' fallacy, as if being victim of a rape was not grave enough.
And, talking about being offensive:
"I still felt unease. Why? Because suddenly [...] at least some of the overwhelmingly male audience around me were thinking
In other words: show a picture with a content somewhat remotely sexual in nature and these 'animals' won't be able to control themselves anymore.
I wonder why would anyone make any effort to be 'inclusive' of someone who pre-judge them as a uncontrolled automaton prone to turn to a rapist at the mere view of a cartoon of a pig doing a goose ?