No Need To Have An Argument; Just Present Your Oppression Group
This comes out of intersectionality, which I explain in my Penthouse Australia piece:

In a total reverse of Martin Luther King's call to judge people "by the content of their character," intersectionality became a pissing contest of victimhood and oppression. Under intersectionality, high status is not earned; it's granted through one's group membership - how many boxes one can check on the "marginalised" groups ledger: Lesbian? Black? Missing a limb? You get to talk. White women, shut up and "check your privilege".

Of course, this is social original sin. You can't control your colour or whether you're born with all the usual limbs; you can only control what you do.

In line with victimhood as the new hustle, Jacob Siegel writes at Tablet about a new form of "truth":

Have you noticed how many people, especially online, start their statements by telling you their profession or their identity group: As a privileged white woman; as a doctoral student in applied linguistics; as a progressive Jewish BIPOC paleontologist--and so on? These are military salutes, which are used to establish rank between fellow "az-uhs" while distinguishing them as a class from the civilian population. You must always listen to the experts, the new form of argument insists, and to the science. Anything else would be invalid; science denialism; not rational; immoral.

Because of the way it toggles back and forth between rationalism and religiosity, switching categories by taking recourse to one when the other is questioned, the new form of argument-commandment, rather than invalidating itself or foundering on its own contradictions, becomes, somehow, rhetorically invincible--through the demonstration of power relations that the arguer denies exist, but are plainly manifest in the progress of the argument.

The group of historians who submitted their letter of dissent to The New York Times, objecting to the historical claims in the paper's flagship 1619 project provided a nice demonstration of this point. They questioned the project's scholarship and in response, were accused of being old white men, as indeed most of them were, and antique reactionaries. When they pleaded that they were not abettors of white supremacy but objected to the project's historical claims, they were told their history was in error. In the end the historians, however distinguished their careers were beforehand, appeared confused and defeated, complaining solicitously in their allotted column inches in the paper's letters section.

The 1619 project, meanwhile, having essentially conceded the historians' central point, lost nothing at all. It marches on unscathed toward becoming the official curriculum in the nation's public school system, replacing the products of the American historical profession as a whole, which must either adapt or suffer a similar humiliation. The outcome proved that whether or not the historians were right about the facts of history, they had made a fundamental error in judging where power lies. At best, they are dopes who thought they were smarter, which is to say more powerful, than they are. At worst, they are professionally self-destructive, and--who knows--maybe even racists.

Argument itself requires that certain fundamental questions are settled and beyond dispute. In order to argue over whether the sky is blue, we'll have to agree on what the sky is. The new argumentation has not only vastly expanded the number of subjects that are supposed to be beyond argumentation, it has, by a sleight of hand, reversed the nature of the matters that cannot be questioned. Now, it is precisely the most contentious issues--is biological sex a valid concept? Is racism and abuse so widespread in American law enforcement that we should immediately defund the police?--that must be accepted a priori.

To insist that the conclusion that the arguer wishes to reach, with its implied corollary commandment, must be accepted by his or her opponent as a premise before the argument begins is not the move of a person who has confidence in their truth. It is the opposite of any form of reasoned argument. It is coercive. Except the people who argue this way claim that they cannot possibly be coercive, because you must accept the premise that they don't have power--even if they are editing The New York Times Magazine, or threatening to get you fired from your job. You say they can't have it both ways? They say, why not--and then accuse you of opposing the powerless, which, it turns out, is a form of authority that cannot be trumped.