Taking issue with the immediate designation as “survivor”

In the actual definition-base, I’ll take the issue with the immediate designation of those reporting assault as a "survivor." For me, [from a] legal standpoint - just from a language stand point, [this] immediately shifts the burden of proof to the respondent.. [...] Without, from my perspective, without actually diminishing the intensity of sexual abuse and sexual assault, nor the legitimacy of actual survivors [...], for people who abuse this system, it is a window through which to do this. For example, if I were to immediately at this very moment falsify a claim against you, saying you had sexually assaulted me, I would instantaneously be labeled as a "survivor," which language-wise, immediately puts a noose around your neck that you have to try to remove instead of the standard prosecutor-defendant relationship. [...] The immediate designation of "survivor" immediately assumes that the event did happen and it makes the assumption that the other person, as I said, is a "perpetrator." So, from a person looking into the situation without reading the specific definition, if they were to hear the words of "survivor", they would immediately assume that this person is entirely in the right in their claim. In the event that the person was sexually assaulted, the term “survivor” is extremely applicable and is 100% worth taking. However [...] that is a title [unclear] needs to be earned and something more diminished, like "respondent," for this position should be established.