I just feel that it fails to address the question, which is whether either or both of these things are (or should be) considered personal attacks, or otherwise against the rules.
And again, this is not the official definition of the term, but fits more with how I commonly see it used. Maybe, like with ‘titular’, we can accept this is no longer a misuse but a secondary meaning of the word? Especially because in this case there doesn’t seem to be any other word for the phenomenon, and because sticking strictly to the original definition is going to make it vanishingly rare in practice.
AIUI, the recourse for this sort of thing is supposed to be arguing against the claim about motives. At least in theory, it’s something that could be discussed, and where people could present evidence for and against their claims. But in 90% of cases that would result in a hijack, as it did with Der_Trihs’s replies in the original thread, and it’s also an issue where evidence is by nature very limited, leading to a pointless back and forth. In practice it becomes something akin to a microaggression, an unpleasantness that just has to be ignored/endured.
(Except that AFAIK this is banned for certain characteristics/identities, the ones which are… well, high on the oppression pyramid. 
)