By using a personal definition that is in contrast with the actual definition, and engineering that definition so it excludes most counter examples of poverty as "not real poverty according to my definition" is effectively the same thing... you are just defining what is real by manipulating the definition and letting it have an effect.
It is indistinguishable from no real scotsman fallacy IMO.
> By your definition, I pulled myself out of poverty a few times too. It's not relevant to a policy discussion.
It isnt **my** definition. It is the universal definition people who speak english use. And yes you pulled yourself out of poverty a few times then, how is that not relevant?