No - you are mis-remembering I think. The classic question is "have you stopped beating your wife?" And the entire point, again, is the attempt to constrain to a yes/no answer, both of which admit the presumption, and it becomes the fallacy of many questions. It is a common error to mis-characterize any loaded question as that fallacy.
But both contain the same built-in presumption.
How is "When did you stop beating you're wife?" fundamentally different from "Have you stopped beating your wife?" The issue is less about the constraint of the yes/no answer than it is about the built in presumption. What you're saying is true if the questioner will only accept the constrained set of implied answers. For example:
In "When did you stop beating you're wife?" and the questioner will only accept a date as an answer it is not fundamentally different from the question phrased as "Have you stopped beating your wife?" and the questioner constraining the answer to yes or no. Both of these questions can be dealt with by rejected the in-built presupposition (that he has been beating his wife) by answering "I have never beat my wife."
But none of this changes the fundamentally loaded nature of the question to begin with.
When you ask "Where did your oppression complex come from?" there is a built-in assumption that the recipient of this question has an "oppression complex" and built-in implication that the acceptable answers are either a) a source of this "oppression complex", or b) "nowhere" which does not entirely (or even at all) reject the built-in assumption that the question recipient does have an "oppression complex." Again, the recipient can answer by rejecting this assumption outright by saying "I don't have an oppression complex." This differs in no significant way from the beating your wife example.
You are still missing or ignoring my point. I completely agree that it is a loaded question. My point is that it is not an informal fallacy. I cannot find a way to state that more clearly, but the distinction, while subtle, is precise, and carries significant implications. If your argument is that it does not change the "fundamental" nature of the question (i.e. they kind of mean the same thing), and so you are unable to distinguish between those classes of question, then we will have to agree to differ.