It's very dangerous to classify all penetrative behaviors under the same definition, for obvious reasons. You need nuance in law. If you want to have sex with someone and they initiate, and everything's fine up to a certain point where you tell them to stop and they keep going - that is not the same magnitude of damage as some stranger cornering you in an alley, ripping your clothes off, and anally raping you. There needs to be distinction, and you can apply that distinction at many levels. For example, you could question the levels of consent that were violated; in the prior case, the only level of consent that would be violated is the site of penetration, and not penetration itself, or the removal of clothes, or sexual interaction, or probably many other specific sexual activities that they engaged in. This is actually pretty straightforward, and makes a lot of sense if you don't feel like being overly stubborn.
In any case, this is mostly irrelevant. The main problem is that she settled, and morally got the compensation that she thought at the time would be enough to 'soothe her mental pain'. Now she's changing her mind, and wants more, because she sees an opportunity to get more due to the current social climate.