It might sound radical, but I don't believe that there is a sound basis for a system that supposes that being a member of a group gives you legitimacy to speak upon the needs of that group any more than a non-member does. De facto legitimacy risks mindless trumping of thoughtful contributions made by non-members. But really, this is the problem with tribalism in general. Whenever individuals identify themselves as part of a social group, they are eliminating certain possibilities that cannot co-exist with the definition of that social construct. For example, one issue that plagues feminism, is that no one is a women. The same goes for any social group, actually. But these issues mostly arise when definitions of the group run counter to some sort of common or accepted practice.