Everyone is "Just Insecure", "Just Jealous", or "just Overcompensating". Not sure what fallacy this is?

Hello everyone, thank you for reading my question,
So I have a lot of pent-up frustration with this fallacy from hearing it over the years, but have never been able to
name it, let alone construct a cogent argument against it. I am not sure it is "unfalsifiability" as that does not seem to do it justice.

Here goes:
X is defined as an undesirable trait.
The manifestations of X cover the full range of behaviour, such that X becomes meaningless
Anyone can be shamed on the basis of X.

For example,
everyone is acting out of "insecurity", suggesting that being insecure is a shameful behaviour, but the meaning of the word is so fuzzy, Even the most ambitious, accomplished person, can be shamed for acting out of some "deep-seated insrcurity" in the same way as the "nobody" is shamed for being "insecure" about their place in the world.
Which brings me to the next example, not sure if this is perfectly related, or if I am bordering on another logical fallacy.

Anyone can be accused of "overcompensating"
Anyone can be accused of "seeking approval" or "validation"

The point is there is a presumption that certain acts are wrong, or make a person inferior ("insecure") , followed by vague definitions of that very thing, and vague or very diverse definition of manifestations of said behaviour.

Sadly, in some cases, this does a disservice as it is not just an attempt to belittle the subject, it is belittling of a more serious issue, for example, my already overused example of being "insecure" as something that is shameful, when in reality lack of assertiveness is a crippling issue for a lot of people. Child abuse is also belittled in this way. "Boo hoo, did your mother never love you?" (sardonic tone), when anyone's abrasive behaviour or opinion is being pinned on child abuse or neglect.
The assumptions are that
Child abuse or neglect causes people to behave abrasively, to take out their rage on the world, as it were.
Victims of child abuse (or "insecurity", or "overcompensation" or whatever is in context) are shameful
Person's views and attitudes can be dismissed or simplified based on this cluster of suppositions.
Also, aforementioned stigmatized trait has a wide, vague range of manifestations, so anyone can be
dismissed in this way.

It is a very Freudian way of thinking that is still present in a lot of ways.
It used to be said (and is sometimes still is) that homosexual men just had a bad relationship with their fathers.
Implying
*Homosexuality is shameful, or disgusting
Demeaning the issue of bad parent-child relationships
Using this to shame homosexuals.

Sorry for the long rant and poor grammar, articulation, etc. This has been very frustrating over the years, but I have not found a way to express this thought. Is there a fallacy that adequately describes this? Is it a hybrid?

The "everyone" part is throwing me off, because (at least here in the States) such a phrase (e.g., "everyone is [undesirable trait]") is not common. It seems like someone saying this would be obvious hyperbole , which as you suggest, would really then become synonymous with humanity.

In general, what you are describing could fall under the ambiguity fallacy , since it appears that it is deliberately being unclear in order to associate the negative connotation with the traits that the term normally conveys with the person.

This is my take. Let's see if any one else has some other ideas.

Well, without delving too much into the thick of it my first reaction was Ad hominem (guilt by association) and hasty generalization with a side of composition and division fallacies i.e. assuming that a whole group of people are guilty for the same reason, or conversely assuming that because one homosexual had a bad relationship with their father it must mean all homosexuals have parental issues.

X is a homosexual
X had a bad relationship with his father
Therefore, all homosexuals have bad parental relationships. (composition)

Homosexuality is caused by bad parenting
X is a homosexual
Therefore, X hates his parents. (Division)

X is a very angry person
X was abused by his parents
Therefore all victims of child abuse are angry (hasty generalization, etc.)

All victims of child abuse are filled with rage
X is a very angry person
Therefore X is a victim of child abuse (Ad hominem Guilt by Association)

Anyway, just throwing out some alternatives.