Another word for subjective truths can be assumption. I would argue that truths that are extrapolated from unique and small sample sizes can be false and harmful (not always). Perception can be clouded by anger or hate or a multitude of other biased filters that draw up conclusions that were never contemplated or intended by other actors.

If a person engages in a public forum and, especially, when a person argues for legal and societal changes based on those truths/experiences, then that opens them to scrutiny. And it should. Now, I agree that being belittled is not conducive to a healthy conversation. However, criticism and disagreement is not equivalent to belittling. Perhaps those authors that do not want to have other races/genders/nationalities participate, they should include such a disclaimer in their writing. Then again, I certainly hope that people are more willing to exit echo chambers and engage with contrarian views.

I would go one step further, and perhaps become much less popular in saying so, and say that minorities lose sole ownership of issues when the discussion shifts to actions or solutions that affect society at large. Issues like affirmative action, proposed funding changes, changes in education, crime, etc...

Regarding expression, everybody is certainly welcome to express themselves however they see fit. I would never advocate gagging or prohibiting any expression. However, again, when people choose to express themselves in a public forum, the public has a right to challenge that expression especially when it appears ignorant or seeks to incite and I disagree with the notion that victimhood elevates a minority's right to expression or anger above that of everyone else (not saying that was the point you were making).