In activist and academic circles, privileged people are expected to automatically defer to marginalized people on issues of oppression. Philosopher Olúfẹ́mi Táíwò argues that this norm kills solidarity and replaces effective politics with endless navel-gazing.
this specific point gets at the heart of the problem imo: fundamentally, you are outsourcing your position/analysis/evaluation to someone else, and you are doing so in a implies that person’s position is unimpeachable–but that’s obviously illogical and unreasonable to expect of anyone. nobody is correct on every issue, and furthermore someone’s lived experiences may be extremely important and priceless, but they don’t guarantee a person will come to a right or reasonable conclusion about an issue either. so when we normalize this kind of shorthand thinking, we ensure that our future analysis will somehow be errant, because a point that should be challenged will eventually go unchallenged, or similar.