I don't necessarily see (which may be my failure to get it) but she may be using the example of sexual assault/abuse for reasons other than she's hinting at it for you. She may use it as an example because it seems like a clear one that makes the point easier, while other types of abuse may not work as well. And sometimes the line between physical or emotional and sexual abuse is not very obvious, such as cases where the sexual abuse was a sexualized atmosphere, i.e. parent commenting on the child's body (a certain world leader comes to mind).

Discussing it with her makes sense, bringing it up in the realm of "I'm curious about something, you've used the example of sexual assault several times and I don't quite understand what the point was." OR however you'd like to say it. IME the best way to understand what someone else meant or what their purpose was in saying it is to ask them directly.

I'm pretty cautious around the false memory stuff, as I was around working with victims when it started. There's very little good science to support it although I believe it can happen with or without a therapist. I also believe people can be abused and there is pretty good science about the aftermath of that, memory related and not. But the foundation that was started began with perpetrators who wanted to further punish their victims through lawsuits and publicity. While I'm sure not everyone who is on the advocacy wagon for "false memories" is not a perpetrator, perpetrators find a shield and benefit from this work.