Indeed, there are ways of thought which are not consistent with logic. I am not talking about such fallacies here. All of formal fallacies, statistical fallacies or fallacies of relevance (e.g. ad homenem) are here.
But I'm talking about other arguments which are called fallacies. Among them are naturalistic fallacy, appeal to consequences, no true Scotsman and hundreds of others. But as I see it, they are not real fallacies but only the unpersuasive points. Otherwise we could call for any X "appeal to X" a fallacy. For example, appeal to science, appeal to logic, appeal to rationality, etc.
So, are they really called fallacies just in order to make an accuser, the one who says another person is commiting a fallacy, seem more persuasive, therefore being just a manipulative trick?