Valid points, but you’d do well not to refer to that state as “depression.” Depression is a particular pathology and most people are going to interpret it in regards to the medical/chemical circumstance rather than what you’re describing.
Siloing the concepts seems like a bad idea. Let's say someone has bad life circumstances, bad reinforcing patterns of behavior, plus a chemical imbalance in their brain. If they seek medical help for "depression", should treatment focus on the chemical imbalance? It could be that chemical imbalance is entirely due to their life circumstances, and addressing those would be much more appropriate than medicating them.
Treatment should focus on both. That doesn’t mean that bad life circumstances are depression though; rather they can be a factor contributing to depression.
If you went to a doctor for type 2 diabetes, they would tell you to eat healthier and exercise as well as to take medications when needed. Your eating and activity habits are not themselves diabetes, even though they contribute directly to your diabetes. Another person could act exactly the same but not trigger diabetes because of lower genetic predisposition. And another person could have a healthier lifestyle than you and have diabetes despite that (e.g. Type 1). Lifestyle is a contributor while diabetes is the pathology.
Life circumstances can be a contributor, but depression is a pathology. An effective healthcare team will treat both.
The medical community doesn't own the entire term. An individual should be able to say "I think I'm depressed" when reflecting on their own mental state, without that implying a narrow medical condition. Or worse, some paternalistic doctor attacking them for self-diagnosing.
You can say whatever you want to say if you feel it expresses your point. I’m simply trying to illustrate how many people would misconstrue your meaning if you refer to “depression” that way.
