On one hand that sounds like pretty typically shitty behavior from someone who never imagines that there might be lasting consequences for anyone as a result. On the other hand that's a pretty low bar for a year of PTSD.
Even though Microsoft swore they were not being threatening, they did, in fact, put the other company out of business.
If you are dealing with an 800 pound gorilla, the feelings associated with being so much as looked at wrong can be quite strong. With someone in a powerful position treating someone in a vulnerable position so aggressively, her description is not unreasonable.
Also, she said "PTSD-like."
Words have meanings, just because someone interprets them in their own way, doesn't mean they can claim X when it's not considered warranted.
So regardless of this particular case, we can, and do, society collectively does set the bar for what can be considered X or Y -- and someone can argue based on that.
(That said, grabbing her hand and not letting go despite attempts to free it, and groping her body, clearly fits the bill for sexual harassment and a stressful situation).
Pedantry over trivial side issues serves to distract from the primary issue at hand, which, as another commented, doesn't make your priorities look so hot.
According to Wikipedia: "Harassment can include "sexual harassment" or unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature." and "It includes a range of actions from mild transgressions to sexual abuse or sexual assault."
I referred to a "stressful situation" in justifying the PT(S)D claim, i.e. to say that this was indeed stressful (as I explicitly say), whereas you seem to be in the impression that I said it to downplay the incident.
Until a few decades ago, homosexuality was a disease that was OK to be cured with things like electroshock treatment. Heck, people had lobotomies inflicted upon them, in the 20th century, for all kinds of BS reasons. Here on HN too, many will attack the prevalent over-prescription of drugs and diagnoses of ADHD to children.
[edited to clarify that this doesn't just make it a hostile environment to women]
So while your logic is sound, there is no reason to panic because the assumptions don't hold.
You have no idea whether they have. At best it doesn't add to the conversation, and at worse you're wrong and making everyone feel awful, yourself included.
Even if that's true, that might make them more impartial and clear-headed on the issue, rather than less. The same reason that defense lawyers usually reject jurors that had personal experiences about the offence on trial.