Arguments Don't Have White Testicles

In a recent exchange with Preston Sprinkle about his book on the Bible and homosexuality, Eliel Cruz, comments (I believe in a tweet):

“Oh great. Just what we need. Yet another book about homosexuality by a white, straight, privileged male.”

I can't speak for Preston (who issued an apology in light of Cruz's blog post rebuttal linked to above), but I'd say that if there were anyone who needed to issue an apology, it is Cruz for attempting to silence a dissenting voice (and a sympathetic one at that!) with sentences cloaked in academese, mumbo jumbo.
What we need are some memorable one-liners to quickly combat such nonsense and bring people to their senses (there is a point to proverbs and aphorisms after all). To "Arguments Don't have Testicles" we might add "Arguments aren't white" and "Arguments have no sexual orientation."

Examples of practical application:
"You're a man.  You have no right to discuss abortion!"
Response: "Arguments don't have testicles!"

"What could a white man possibly have to say about racism!?"
Response: "Arguments have no race!  Arguments have no skin!"

"That's very heteronormative of you to say!"
Response: "Heteronormative?  Arguments aren't hetero or homo!  Their normativity is purely epistemic!"

Are arguments privileged?  Cruz certainly does not write as if they are. For him, he seems to privilege the telling of stories.   Remember: the left likes to talk about stories and "narratives"--stories, of course, are useful and pleasing whether they are fact or fiction.

[Note: I doubt Preston would affirm my suggested sentences; he does not see one of his roles as an unpopular and annoying fly.]