This may be a matter of semantics, but I'm trying to pin down what fallacy this is.

"If you don't have a uterus, your opinion on abortion is irrelevant."

I've been trying to figure out what fallacy this fits with best. My first instinct was Genetic Fallacy, but the statement isn't really addressing a truth claim, rather it's asserting that any claim made is irrelevant.

Then I started to think Ad Hominem would be better, because the opponent is the focus of the attack rather than their argument, but again, it's more of a statement about the validity of potential arguments than it is a personal attack.

Is there some other, more obscure fallacy I'm missing, or what?

Thanks in advance!

While no context is provided for this assertion it might be insightful to riff on it a bit, i.e., adding a similar assertion and some hypothetical context, to see whether the fallacy continues to exist:

1."If you don't have a uterus (i.e., a woman) your opinion on abortion is irrelevant."

Compare this to:

2. “If you aren’t a Person of Color (e.g., African American) your opinion on racial discrimination in the U.S. is irrelevant.”

Are these statements equivalent, and equally fallacious?

Possible embedded assumptions (context) for each:

1.If you aren’t a woman you can’t possibly comprehend the pain of childbirth, therefore your opinion on abortion is irrelevant.
2. If you are not e.g., African American, you cannot possibly have experienced racial discrimination, and therefore cannot understand it. Thus, your opinion on it is irrelevant.

In #1 it is accepted that only women can experience the risk of childbirth and its accompanying pain. The question becomes whether this rises to a level sufficient to overwhelmingly surmount other issues, e.g., per Bo, rights of the father, also possibly the life of the unborn child during the third trimester. If the answer is ‘yes’ it would seem that the default ‘male’ opinion does become largely irrelevant (and the fallacy vanishes.)

#2 holds there is a tacit assumption that other forms of personal discrimination (e.g., obesity, Gay, Jewish, etc. etc.) non-Blacks may have experienced in life, perhaps even combined with a strong capability for empathy, fall short of requisite A posteriori knowledge of racial discrimination, thus opinions on it are irrelevant. (The view reflecting a singular discriminatory experience has been voiced selectively by African Americans at different times toward both Jews and Gays claiming discriminatory camaraderie.) My view is that while the selective degree of empathy for, and understanding of racial discrimination by e.g., non-Blacks may asymptotically approach that of African Americans having lived it, it cannot fully reach their A posteriori depth. However, this delta is not sufficient to render opinions on it irrelevant, thus the fallacy remains.

Well I'm a man and I have a uterus sleeping in the bed next to me so I'm gonna ask, "what is meant by having a uterus?" Behahah ok not funny

I would charge problematic premise:

Premise: People without a uterus shouldn't have an opinion on abortion.
Conclusion: You don't have a uterus, therefore your opinion on abortion is irrelevant

That premise is not widely accepted and thus needs defending.

She is making the case lacking a gender specific body part disqualifies a male from having an opinion on abortion, tell her there are other female body parts that men don't have and if the same logic applies, her argument will fall apart.

You could maybe charge improper appeal to authority. She is casting herself as an expert on the subject of abortion by virtue of possessing a uterus.

Clearly that alone does not make one an authority on the subject.

I think we should all agree that per the OP's statement, “if you don't have a uterus” is a snarky proxy for “not being a woman” i.e., a male. No more, no less. To further debate this self-evident proposition becomes an exercise in extracting gnat feces from a pepper shaker with tweezers.

Per my prior post, the issue then becomes whether a woman’s life risk (women do occasionally die during) and experience of pain during childbirth trumps all other considerations in determining whether to elect to give birth (or abort). I submit to you that a lot of women believe this is indeed the case, and that as a consequence the ‘male’ opinion on this matter (i.e., incapable of experiencing childbirth) arguably becomes irrelevant. I personally find this position extreme, but it is not entirely without logical merit.