Qualification or experience

What fallacy would it be if someone tries to claim that someone's argument isn't valid because they're not qualified in the area concerned or haven't experienced a particular situation? There will be exceptions to this of course, because there are plenty of things that should be left to experts or you can only really understand and appreciate if you've been through the experience, but if for instance someone expressed concern that their cat wasn't laying eggs then you wouldn't need to be a vet to tell them that cats don't lay eggs and hence there was nothing to worry about!

It might simply be untrue. As a white, hetero, male, I cannot speak about the experiences of a black gay woman. However, as a social psychologist, I can speak authoritatively on social issues of race, sexuality, and gender. So it depends on what qualifications they actually need (educational vs. experiential).

It's basically an ad hominem, ad fidentia, or a sleight-of-hand red herring depending on the form of the attack. In the defense of any claim, I always look for how quickly the claimant shifts from the original argument or claim and digresses to personal anecdotes, personal qualifications, or other unlikely appeals to dubious authority. ( I have three degrees!) That's usually the first tell-tale sign of deception.

It's not about you or me, it's about the claim.

P1: I spoke to G-d yesterday and he told me to stop smoking weed.

P2: That's highly improbable. Isn't it more likely it was a form of neurotic delusion or drug-induced hallucination? 

P1: How would you know, you've never smoked weed.

Or,

P1: I spoke to G-d yesterday and he told me to stop smoking weed.

P2: That's highly improbable. Isn't it more likely it was a form of neurotic delusion or drug-induced hallucination? 

P1: Not really. I read Tommy Chong's biography and he claims the same thing happened to him.