The only possible response by a sane man to an insane claim is laughter and ridicule. Never buy radical premises. In the course of political badinage, do not settle for reason where action is due (and vice versa). This logic extends with especial force to the needfulness of the scornful guffaw. Laugh openly at your radical opponent’s insane, constant recusals of the Christian West.
With good reason, the expression, “I will not dignify that claim with a response,” bears profound value against radicals, especially in the clownish cultural and political scene today. The act of laughing makes for a devastating weapon of cultural war because there is simply no dignified reply to it!
If a man responds line-item to a radical’s insane proposition in a way which suggests that it deserves more dignity than it actually merits, moderate and incautious listeners nearby may be persuaded in the wrong direction. If they are not persuaded all the way in the wrong direction, they will at the very least lose interest in the prolix dialogue between you and the radical, assuming as they walk away that the truth is probably something of a median between the two positions they heard. On the other hand, if they had heard you simply laugh at the idiotic blasphemy leveled by the radical, your punchy laughter would have well served both their curiosity and their short attention span.
In other words, one need not outsmart oneself by avoiding the intuitive schoolyard approach of ridicule. Trust your gut, especially when it tells you to laugh at radical claims. Retrogrades who fail to respond with laughter will end up, in good faith, buying dangerous premises that would have more easily been rejected by simple ridicule in the first place. Not only does this needlessly lengthen what should be quick, pithy “conversations” with radicals, but more importantly, it lends false credibility to incredible and neurotoxic ideas (even in the shrewd mind of the retrograde).
The conventional wisdom by old-guard types within the ranks of “humble” Christianity or center-right politics would be either to listen “compassionately” without reply or to “reason it out” slowly in dialogue. Both of these replies are gravely mistaken, which costs their users efficacy and “street cred.” The latter is earned by satisfying the gut instincts.
For example, the proposition that “men have penises” is now supposed to be controversial. Radical haters of the Christian “patriarchy” have seen to it that the most fundamental Christian teachings on human sexuality—and pretty much everything else—are now received as dubious and hateful. This represents abject madness.
Listening compassionately to a confused person of this persuasion is never a bad idea in the one-on-one context. But a retrograde, as we said above, is exceedingly unlikely to find himself in private dialogues with transsexuals. Dialogue will usually be of the public sort. Accordingly, some form of winsome public reply will be needed. Don’t borrow trouble; take shortcuts where they present themselves. The derisive laugh will not be available for all the vast array of radical claims, many of which will have to be forensically dispelled. But where laughter is sufficient, use it!
Any thoughtful—or even unthoughtful—reply (aside from scornful laughter) tendered to a radical who attempts to rebut the obvious fact that only “men have penises,” will automatically ennoble the inane notion that natural sexuality can be altered. Replying with diligently collected biological data, of course, might winsomely convince an interlocutor who honestly didn’t already know this basic fact of human life. But since there are virtually zero honest disbelievers in the fact of two biological sexes, your data (and the time you spent to acquire it) will have been misspent on fools.
Retrogrades’ time-efficiency and individual reputations will improve sharply upon the habituation of the well-timed, well-placed guffaw of unmuted derision.