It’s impossible for you to understand, therefore I am right.

I think more information needs to be known before this question can be answered. What exactly did this woman say you could not understand? 

I'll be honest and say I'm a racial minority, so maybe that will taint my view on this, but I can explain it from a perspective of someone who "understands"

The first thing that needs to be known is what she means by "understand". I'm going to assume based on other conversations I've had in a similar context that what she means is having first hand experience. 

If she suggested that it's impossible to understand what it's like to experience racism, or what's is like to be a minority, then she has a point. According to how racism is defined currently, white people cannot experience racism. Given you're not a minority, you wouldn't know what that experience is like either. I think this is true because the targets of racial discrimination are almost always evident  and inversely, those who benefit from the racial heiarchy. People are not likely to accidentally impose racism on a non person if color (POC)

If she meant it's impossible to understand the interior politics or social issues  amongst POC, I'd say that's not necessarily true. Its possible that you are engaged with the POC community and collaborate with them to seek social justice. Then I'd assume you'd probably be quite knowledgeable on the social issues and politics affecting POC. 

 To answer the OP, it isn't clear whether there is a specific fallacy being committed here. You could make an argument that she is guilty of the identity fallacy

I was intentionally vague because I have seen this argument used indiscriminately, but on the other hand it is reasonable to use this argument in some situations.  In my case I was talking to a Black woman about police and prison reform.  She wants to abolish both and I want to reform both.  One of her arguments was that I did not understand how her position was better because I was not Black.  To me this looks like cheating.  Furthermore, I know other non-white people who have the same position that I do.  

What does race have to do with a point of view?

Lived experience informs point-of-view

Race affects lived experience

Ergo race has some effect on point-of-view

Any identity that affects your lived experience of society will have this impact.

[To Dr. Richard]

Race has a lot to do with ones point of view. I really wish it wasn't true, but not all races are treated equally. 

For example, studies have shown in the US that if a black man and a white man apply for the same job having the same qualifications, the white man is more likely to get the job. Further, the white man typically gets paid more for the same work (.97 for each dollar). The white man is also more likely to get a loan , or a mortgage, and better interest rates. The disparity gets worse among white men and black women.

In the white man's point of view he might think "I'm as successful as I am because I've worked hard. If you work hard and make the right decisions you'll get where you want to go in life just like me".

The implication being white people work harder than blacks, therefore they get more opportunities (better pay, better mortgage, higher chance of promotion)

 However, the black man might think "success isn't just about hard work. Success is also dependent on the position of privilege you are in. Its a lot harder for a black man to reach the same status in society that a white man has." 

I'm not saying the white man is necessarily unaware of his better deal in life (he could read the studies), but a lot of people rely on their immediate experience to shape their point of view on issues. A white person cannot experience these kinds of discrimination, and as a result might be completely unaware that the disparities exist and incorrectly assume it isn't the case. A black person can't avoid being affected by these disparities, so he is likely aware of them because of experience.

I think there is some conjecture here based upon the desired outcome or confirmation bias. Your examples do not apply, for example, to the black people I know, including one couple who has been friends for over a quarter of a century. 

[To Dr. Richard]

Fair enough. The pay gap and other things I talked about can be a pretty contentious topic, and theres a lot we could discuss further. 

This example pretty much only applies to people living in the US. In other parts of the world the experience can be very different

Unfortunately, I think this website is probably not the best platform to unpack these ideas any more than we already have.

Take care!

I don't like the argument that it is impossible for me to understand their position because I bet I could if she explained it well enough.  When she makes no attempt to explain her position it feels like a "just trust me without evidence" kind of argument.  Or a "You are wrong because you are white" kind of argument.  I understand that there are trials of POC I have not experienced but that it is impossible for me to imagine is less believable.  

If a Black person says "This is something only Black people understand", this suggests that all Black people believe the same things and they don't.  Maybe all black people have experienced similar forms of discrimination but if they make a specific claim, like "No Black people like the police".  This is obviously wrong because some Black people do like the police.   

Interesting points. 

I wanted to discuss a bit more the point you make in the end. You state "this attitude, in the context of an argument, becomes a fallacy (identity fallacy)." 

I don't disagree with this. However, it does seem at odds with how the identity fallacy is defined on this site. It does state that the fallacy is present when "the strength of the argument is independent of identity". This would imply its only present in the context of an argument. However one of the examples given implies this falllacy  can be situational.

See eg #2: 

"The female staff of a large corporation holds a meeting to discuss solutions to reduce discrimination against women at the company. Men are invited but asked just to listen and not contribute to the discussion."

"Explanation: The implication here is that men have nothing to add to the discussion. Ideas to reduce gender discrimination are independent of gender, that is, both men and women can have equally valid arguments."

Notice that no argument is being made, only the situation Implies that women are perceived as having a more valid opinion. This suggests that it's possible to commit the identity fallacy outside of an argument. It does say in the end "both men and women can have equally valid arguments", but that seems odd given they're not having a debate in this example.

IMO I don't think this example is a true demonstration of the fallacy, but it does raise some questions for me about what proper example of this fallacy would be

I guess Dr Bo is referring to the implicit argument that is made when men are invited to attend, but told not to ask any questions or contribute to the discussion; it's the suggestion that any contribution they make - any arguments they form - is less valid because they're male.

Yes, I think that's where he was going with that. I do think that this assumption is likely wrong in most real life situations where this would happen. Typically the rationale behind asking more privileged people (e.g. men) to not speak is because they feel those groups ideas have been disproportionately represented, so they are using that particular opportunity to listen to voices that may be otherwise overlooked in favor of men's opinions. They are saying "men have had plenty of opportunities to be heard. Now it's time for them to sit back and listen"

While I don't 100% agree with this rationale, I think this is most likely the reason rather than because women think men's opinions are less valid.

Ill digress now...

I would be comfortable with a discussion where women are encouraged to speak more and speak first, but men are still allowed to contribute something.