Is there such a thing as a victimhood fallacy?

Another argument I encounter frequently on the internet.

Person has been a victim of X
Person is now an expert on X

I have personally been mugged. Therefore I know more about muggings than veteran police officers who have never been mugged personally. Your argument is wrong because you have not personally been victimized by X

A similar problem is...

I have personally experienced X and you haven't.
Therefore I know more about X than anyone who has not personally experienced it.

Obviously this is faulty reasoning. What if the person who experienced the mugging was poorly educated or of low intelligence or simply not an expert on muggings. A veteran police officer may never have been mugged and still know more about it than the person who was mugged.

So what is this one? Thanks

-Jacob

Let's look at this line of thinking:

I have personally experienced X and you haven't. Therefore I know more about X than anyone who has not personally experienced it.

It all depends on what we mean by "know about." For example, if X were an orgasm, a scientist who has never experienced an orgasm can know all about the physiological reactions and what is going on biologically and psychologically (the cognitive component of knowledge). But without the experience, they are missing the experiential component , which is required for understanding(or "knowledge") on a subjective/affective level. Adversely, the teenager could know nothing about the facts of an orgasm, but know all about it experientially --several times a day. With this kind of claim, we need to be more clear on what we mean by "know" and what knowing something is implying. For example, the claim that one who has never shot a gun before cannot know about gun violence, is clearly fallacious. Similarly, the claim that a sociologist who studies racism yet has never experienced racism knows everything about racism, is also fallacious, since they do not now about the subject experience of racism.

Ultimately, the example you give might be best classified as equivocation. The concept of "knowing" is being equivocated as it generally refers to facts and data yet in this example it refers to personal experience.

From my book, Uncomfortable Ideas :

As a social psychologist, my goal is to see issues as objectively as possible while recognizing my own biases. For full disclosure, I am a white, cisgender, heterosexual, married, well-educated, upper-middle class male. I don’t have strong political beliefs, but I am definitely left of center. I am an atheist with a naturalistic worldview, but I can certainly appreciate religions for the benefits they offer some people and communities. Given my background, I cannot speak to the lived experiences of the members of the transgender and gay communities, non-whites or women, but I can explore related topics scientifically, objectively, and without passion or ideology. If we want to know about climate change, we’re better off getting our information from climatologists than from Eskimos, even though Eskimos experience the effects of climate change. Knowledge and experience are not the same.