I've seen feminist arguments being made claiming something along the lines of "the fact that we are arguing about rape culture is very indicative of the rape culture isn't it?";
This is a 'conspiracy theory' fallacy https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/74/Conspiracy_Theory. Put short, it is the belief that being silenced is proof you are onto something, an instance of a more general fallacy of 'confirmation bias' http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/logical-fallacies/confirmation-bias-logical-fallacies/ -- taking filtered feedback as evidence.
The fact that a majority player responds to an observation by making it into an argument logically backs up the notion that the minority player is being silenced. The reaction is a knee-jerk rejection of something the speaker did not expect to have to defend, in fact presuming it as a starting point. This turns an attempt to make an observation into the need to defend the framing in which it is stated, effectively preventing the point from being made until the argument is resolved.
On the other hand, when someone wants to wind out their elaboration of how the Illuminati brainwash us, it is easy to see refusal to admit the existence of the Illuminati as proof you are already brainwashed. You are resisting, so you must be complicit. The fact that the rich get richer, they claim, simply must be explained. Well, it is, just not that way...
The logic here is the same. She is attempting an appeal to authority, by pulling out a theory and expecting you to let her start from there, and you are rejecting her authority. But her theory predicts you will reject her authority, even when it is valid, so she sees the argument itself as validation of the theory.
In fact, it is only validation of the observed data that caused that theory to be formulated to begin with. Every time you drop a rock it is not additional support for the theory of gravitation. Theories have to predict more than they explain, in order to accrue credibility, and they need for new data to validate those predictions. More of the same data doesn't qualify. Otherwise, all those conspiracy theorists can just filter the incoming news for repetitions of the patterns that spawned the theory initially, and 'prove' themselves right on a daily basis.
The 'rape culture' paradigm falls into the same hole Popper pointed out swallows up Marxism and naive versions of psychoanalysis: It makes an audacious claim and predicts no new data, relying upon the degree to which it fits the known data and the elasticity of its explanatory mechanism, which allows other data that is encountered at random to be rolled up into the theory, while a bulk of specific predictions fail and are ignored. So while it continues to be an explanation, it fails to gain credibility as a theory.
