I judge you to have no ability to judge.

My general leaning is left and I am involved in a lot of civil right causes, but there are several (at least) bad arguments from my side that crop up regularly.

A frustrated freind of mine just asked me about the logical validity or one of the most irksome arguements. Typically it is used to shut conversation and problem solving down; sadly it has become ubiquitous; it goes as follows.

You have (no right/ability) to(empathize with/know/have insight into) person X because you have not had the experiences of person X and therefore you should not (analyze/judge/offer suggestions to/argue) with them and instead just (listen/believe/support) them.

There seem to be a couple of problems with it (self refuting and special pleading come to mind), but I want to hear what you guys think. Is this argument even logically consistent? Additionally, what is the name of the rhetorical trick where you try to win a debate by defining its parameters in a way that opponents don't have a right to speak?

Reconstruction of the argument:

You have no right or ability to empathize with/know/have insight into person X (premise)
Because you have not had the experiences of person X (premise)
And only one that has had the the experiences of an other can empathize with etc. (implicit premise)
Therefore, you should not (analyze/judge/offer suggestions to/argue) with them and instead just (listen/believe/support) them.(conclusion).

First, the person making the argument seems to draw the wrong conclusion . The premises do not support this conclusion but an other. For instance, it might support the following conclusion: You only have the right or ability to empathize with/know/have insight person X when you have X's experiences. It does not follow from the argument's premises that you have to have X's experiences in order to not judge them but instead just listen to them.Therefore, the the argument does not offer relevant reasons in order to support the conclusion.

Second, I don't know the name of the rhetorical trick used in the argument but the person making these claims invokes some kind of ethical principle ("You don't have the right to...") that seems to be violated in the context of the argument. Thus, the listener could associate negative emotions (e.g., guilt) with the alleged reprehensible action derived from the ethical principle. In a way, the argument seems to play on the listener's feelings of guilt or other negative emotion to derive its supposed strength.

Could this not be appeal to authority?

Example

You don't have kids, so don't tell me how to raise my child.

Now being a parent may or may not make one an authority on raising kids, but certainly not having kids doesn't disqualify you from being an authority, think of a social worker with no kids for example.