It absolutely is not a fallacy, nor is it an inherently rhetorical question. Inquiring as to whether others share your experience isn't illogical; it's the root of most human learning and understanding thus far, and I suspect it precedes most other methods of claim-buttressing. And, to be pedantic, the fallacies you mentioned are specifically in terms of drawing conclusions from that faulty logic; not asking questions.

Also, faulty evidence for a claim is not the same as false evidence for a claim. If I have zero other information besides "other humans exist and act similar to me", and "that object is grey", I can infer that it is more likely than not that other humans see the object as grey. This is faulty in that it is subjective and not rigorous (I could be colorblind), but it is not inherently wrong or invalid reasoning. This is a common annoyance of mine when the terms "fallacy" or "faulty logic" are bandied about: the presence of insufficient logic is only problematic when an insufficiently-premised claim is evaluated against a more-sufficiently-premised claim without considering the differences in the quality of the evidence/premises.