I’m frustrated by the rhetorical tactic where people lead with their identity to validate a sweeping critique of their own group. Whether it’s "As a gay man, I think LGBTQ+ -pride has gone too far!" or "People from New York are obnoxious, and I say this as a New Yorkian!" or "As a heavy metal fan, I think most heavy metal fans are insufferable!".
By front-loading their background, the speaker is trying to substitute ethos (personal credibility) for a logical premise.
It creates a rhetoric "shield", which suggests they are immune to accusations of bias and that their lived experience makes their generalization unfalsifiable.
I think that if you have an opinion or an argument, you should be able to make it stand on its own merit, regardless of who is saying it.
tl;dr: if you feel the need to prove your argument by hiding behind your own identity, I think you should learn to make better arguments. This rhetoric is basically the same thing as the "appealing to authority" argument fallacy.