Yet another of these fallacy questions...
There is a certain kind of rhetorical move which famously might occur in classical psychoanalysis, but also in other situations. The therapist says the patient's behaviour indicates resistance to the treatment. The patient says that he or she is not resisting, and this is taken as further proof for the resistance. So either way, the the therapist can't be wrong.
A similar kind of situation have occurred sometimes when I (as a man) have debated with some quite radical feminists. A feminist makes an argument which is about patriarchal structures somehow. If I disagree, regardless of the content of my argument, the very fact that I disagree, for them, constitutes a proof that they're right. My disagreement with them is predicted by their argument because I'm a man, so no argument I can make can counter their argument.
Can this be considered a logical fallacy or more of a rhetorical move, and has it been named?
Edit:
Reading the answer by Leif, I get the idea that both situations can be understood like this:
Disagreement from resistance is invalid.
All patients have resistance.
Resistance can lead to disagreement.
Therefore, your disagreement is an expression of resistance, and therefore it is invalid.
And the other situation:
- Disagreement from male privilege is invalid.
- All men have male privilege.
- Male privilege can lead to disagreement.
- Therefore, your disagreement is an expression of resistance, and therefore it is invalid.
Structured like this, it seems like the crucial point (at least one crucial point) is assuming that all disagreement is an expression of resistance or male privilege. In this case, it seems to be a logical error, that the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises.
Alternatively, it might be structured like this:
- Disagreement from resistance is invalid.
- Disagreement among patients is always caused by resistance.
- Because you are patient, your disagreement is an expression of resistance, and therefore it is invalid.
And the other situation:
- Disagreement from male privilege is invalid.
- Disagreement among men is always caused by male privilege.
- Because you are a man, your disagreement is an expression of resistance, and therefore it is invalid.
In this case it seems to be the premises, especially #2 that seems to be questionable. Perhaps it's not a fallacy, but just a question of whether you agree with that premise or not?