You think that bacause you're "bad thing".

I know this is a form of Ad Hominem, possibly a form of Appeal to Motive. It's more the form of say stating the other person has come to a certain conclusion "because they're racist" or transphobic and attacking them for that rather than addressing the point they may have made.
I think it's what Penn Jillette is attacking here.
An example would be to be critical of religious practice and someone else just assumes it's based on racism and dismisses it as such, or someone states they think some Trans gender athlete may have an unfair advantage and it's dismissed as transphobia etc.
You think that because you are "bad thing" and on that ground, I can dismiss "point you have made".
A similar form would be if you think "something you have stated" then I bet you think "bad thing".

"You believe X because you are Y [where Y is a bad thing]. Therefore, X is dismissed."

Justin: I support race equality [X], but I don't quite agree with the tactics of the Black Lives Matter movement. They should protest peacefully instead of occupying roads and inciting riots.

Tara: You believe that because as a privileged white man [Y], you've never had to fight for your basic rights. If you were black, you'd understand.

This is typically bulverism - assume someone is wrong (based on their motives, social identity or some other irrelevant factor), then try to explain (condescendingly) how they came to be so wrong. In this case, it's closely related to the identity fallacy where the content of an argument is ignored in favour of evaluating the physical or social identity of the speaker. If accusing someone of bigotry, it's also begging the question as their allegedly bigoted attitudes have not been verified.

These days, the fallacy is unfortunately all too common, as people seek to discredit others rather than address their arguments point-by-point.

I think you need to succinctly state what you are asking and not simply provide a link to a 12-minute video.