Triggered, dysregulated, traumatized.. i see these as semantic distinctions.

I experienced a bunch of small and medium traumas in therapy.

Main point to me is that if something increases physical or psychological distress, it should be seen as harmful, unless there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary. And since no therapist can provide such evidence, nor apply meaningful controls, seems to me this kind of situation = harm the client, hope they claw their way out of it.

ps: I notice in therapy it's always "retraumatizing", as if the experience cannot be traumatic in its own right, without reference to something in the past. This is part of the transference construct that allows therapists to cause harm and then weasel out of it.