If you can show why this makes men less able to make pertinent and logical observations on the subject that would be great. Racial issues can't be understood by outsiders, but I doubt you would argue that that makes the discussion from non-insiders invalid. Further, while men (or a race outside of the group, for consistency,) can't understand an experience directly, we very clearly can understand well enough to relate.
And if you can definitively show that A) the bolded is actually the case and, more importantly to my point, that B) understanding of the 'similar' concepts in question bestows an understanding (of the systemic oppression faced by those with direct experience) sufficient to indicate that this person is a primary source for argumentation
- the point I contended was not the case in my very first post in the current subargument - that would be great.
I have an idea. If you think that the lack of first-hand experience has an impact on the validity of an argument, you could simply show which premises or which logical step in the argument are invalid.
Is it not true within the humanities that as you get further away from primary sources you run a higher risk of misinterpretation (i.e., counterfactual spin and conclusions)? Is it not true that a cisgendered male will not be a primary source for just about all of the mentioned issues in my last post? Is it not true that if both of these statements hold, that a cisgendered male runs a higher risk of misinterpretation of women's experiences? Is it not then true that if all three of these statements hold, that said cisgendered male can mitigate the risk of misinterpretation by deferring to a cisgendered or transgendered female (i.e., primary sources for debate)?