What would this fallacy be?

Many people often use an argument I call “the experience fallacy”. They might say “you don’t get to describe what it’s like if you’ve never experienced it”. I’m surprised this hasn’t been categorized as a logical fallacy because I think it should. It assumes that anyone who experiences it will automatically give an accurate description of what the experience is like even though descriptions sometimes can vary among people who experienced it and a person experiencing it describing what it’s like would be the anecdotal fallacy. Also, sometimes you can know what it’s like to experience it by reading about what it’s like or by surveying a very large sample of people who have experienced it. But being one of the many people who experienced it doesn’t mean you automatically will give an accurate description. If you’ve read about the experience is like, you can describe it because you have researched information instead of being an anecdote. Also, for example, in some cases where people describe what a certain painful situation is like who have experienced it, they might look at the glass as half empty and describe it as worse than it really is or might view the glass as half full and minimize how painful it is. This logical fallacy is like saying we shouldn’t describe what being in Auschwitz is like because we never experienced it or we shouldn’t describe what life was like in the Middle Ages because we never lived back then or a woman shouldn’t speak about what it’s like to be kicked in the balls because she doesn’t have testicles. Etc.

example: you’re white and never experienced racism, therefore you don’t have the right to describe what it’s like for black people in America based on surveys you read of 2000 black people describing it.

the issue with this is that some black people (like Candace Owens) might give an overly optimistic description of racism in America while other black people will view the glass as half empty and describe it as worse than it really is. As a result, a pew research survey would be the best way to find what is closest to the truth.

“you don’t get to describe what it’s like if you’ve never experienced it”.

This assumes that personal lived experience is the only way method of obtaining knowledge, which is false. Second-hand knowledge, such as that coming from other people, can also be used. If it is a research topic, then we can also look at what academic consensus tells us to come to a judgement.

you’re white and never experienced racism, therefore you don’t have the right to describe what it’s like for black people in America based on surveys you read of 2000 black people describing it.

When it comes to social justice, sometimes passionate supporters will say "if you are not from group X, you don't have the right to (whatever) since you lack the subjective lived experience". What they are trying to say is that some feelings and perceptions are unique to certain groups, and if one is not from that group, they will lack that insight. This is because different groups are treated differently and may face different challenges.

That being said, having an unlike experience based on identity is like having a bias. Bias means 'slant', or 'lean'. It does not follow that the argument is invalid or false simply because the person is speaking from a certain socioeconomic viewpoint (Non Sequitur). If an argument is dismissed simply because of someone's identity, as is often unfortunately the case, this is a form of Ad Hominem Circumstantial called the Identity Fallacy.