I've been wondering this on and off for a while now: Can an opinion without experience be as valuable as one with experience? Assuming there are underlying universals which both parties have experienced? Is any of this a logical fallacy?
For example as a heterosexual, if I wanted to say what constitutes sex but had never experienced non-heterosexual sex could someone who had experienced both provide a more valuable opinion than my own?
Since there are clearly underlying universals here which are common to both I would imagine it wouldn't matter if I had or had not engaged in it.
In regards to the fallacy aspect of the question I've read comments saying that this could be ad hominem or the genetic fallacy -- is this true?