He's been saying similar stuff for a while now. I've mostly stopped paying attention to him, but not because of any objection I have to what he says in that video. I stopped paying attention because the vast majority of what he says is stuff he's already written about twenty years ago.
I completely understand the accusation he's highlighting, and I don't think that my knowledge or education means that I can tell those whom I identify as victims how to self-identify. That said, I maintain that there's a difference between talking about individual experiences and structural patterns/theories. It may not be the case that structural patterns and theories always correspond to individual experiences; in some cases, they may be directly opposed to experience and may even offend those who had the experiences. Furthermore, identifying structural patterns doesn't mean that those patterns can then be used to label or identify the individual experiences of those we claim to be affected by structural issues. Between individual experience and structural function lies a phase shift that warps every correlation we'd like to make. In some cases the correlations may hold and come through clearly; in others, they might look entirely counterintuitive.
I don't think this misalignment--if not contradiction--is cause for abandoning structural theories altogether, or even for significantly augmenting structural theories of disenfranchisement. To do so would be to commit the same kind of empiricist error that people make when they believe that getting contradictory experimental results means we need to abandon theoretical claims. When scientists get results--even repeated results--that refute theoretical premises, they don't throw the theory out altogether. Newtonian mechanics didn't become obsolete when Einstein published his theories of relativity, and are in fact still important for things like going to the Moon. Contradictory results mean that other theories can come into play that help us refine older ones. If anything, I'd say that the professed experiences of "victims" (however we apply this term) signal not the obsolescence of structural theories, but ways in which our understanding of structural effects can be sharpened.
It will almost certainly be the case that structural theorizing will never account for individual experience. Žižek's right to point out that academics need to be cautious in presuming their theories allow them to communication with those they identify as "victims."