Here are a number of responses, given by various astrologers.
 

The better questions that should  be asked are, ”Does the use of these ’planets’ work in the horoscope?” Are astrological insights gained by the use of these ”planets”? Here the answer is a resounding yes! The ”planets” have been studied and used advantageously for more than seven decades. I would demonstrate the usefulness of Uranian Astrology with some examples, both based on their own chart and that of a well known figure.  All one can do is present the facts and rest is entirely up to the free will of the person asking for insight. 
 
 

Actually, it  would it be better to call the Transneptunians "Points" rather than "Planets" because they are in fact "hypothetical" even though there is evidence of of their validity -  they are not (at this point in time) physical bodies.  The TNPs were never really sighted, not even detected by the  famous, sacred, modern, sharp-sighted Hubble Telescope. This fact is often used as "a winning argument", by astrologers that discard and discredit the use of TNPs (the "imaginary planets, if you can't see them, they don't 
 exist, and don't work"). 
 
 

     Usually a wise, knowledgeable traditional astrologer would accept Uranian 
            techniques, but not the use of the TNP's. They often say that they favor 
            Ebertine's approach to that of Witte's. Those who discard Uranian 
            astrology altogether are, IMHO just the mediocre and ignorant ones (and 
            you'd be surprised how many such ignorant people who call themselves 
            "astrologers" exist, who can't tell the difference between a fixed star 
            and an asteroid). They are often motivated by fear of things they cannot 
            understand, for they have a limited thinking capacity, and lack the open 
            mind needed for working with astrology. Theses are very much like the 
            scientists (so called sceptics) who discard astrology as a whole, mainly 
            because they never bothered to learn, practice and explore it, and so are 
            absolutely ignorant of it. I wouldn't bother to argue with such 
            "astrologers". From my bitter experience, they are very much stuck with 
            their narrow concepts, and won't listen to the voice of reason. They take 
            pride in their ignorance. 
 
 

   What I would say in reply to someone who made that statement to me is 
            the same thing I would say to a non-astrologer who questions the validity 
            of astrology. "It is not my place to try and convince you one way or 
            another but if you haven't seriously looked at it, or know nothing of how 
            it works - how can you say it doesn't?" 
 
 
 

      When it comes to real astrologers, that accept Cosmobiology, but not the 
            validity of the TNP's, I would use the following arguments: 

            1. "The Uranian astrologer uses all these techniques plus eight additional 
            ”planets” in each horoscope. Have these ”planets” been sighted? Is it 
            claimed that these ”planets” exist as physical bodies? The answer to both 
            questions is no, but this is unimportant. The better questions that should 
            be asked are, ”Does the use of these ’planets’ work in the horoscope?” Are 
            astrological insights gained by the use of these ”planets”? Here the 
            answer is a resounding yes! The ”planets” have been studied and used 
            advantageously for more than seven decades. Please note that this is much 
            longer than Pluto has been studied and used. Several of these ”planets” 
            were first postulated during World War I, predating the sighting of Pluto 
            by 15 years." 

            Or: "Try it for yourself, for a few years, and only then make up 
            your mind about it !!!" 
 
 
 

      A few weeks ago, I had some correspondence with a very good astrologer, 
            that made this statement about "why use imaginary planets, that the Hubble 
            telescope can't see, when we have so many asteroids, that it sure can see, 
            and that work so well" 

            The arguments I came up with were: 

            1. Some astrologers mock the use of Asteroids, calling them "non-planets", 
            rocks, debris and rubble that can't influence us because they are too 
            small. Some of them say:"If you include Asteroids, why not include all man 
            made Satellites and place them on the chart too???..still you yourself use 
            asteroids a lot in your work. Why? 

            2. As for your arguments against the so called "hypotheticals" , that 
            amazingly resemble the arguments of "mainstream scientists" (aka "The 
            astrologically ignorant") against Astrology as a whole...may I answer you 
            with the same words Sir Isaac Newton supposedly used for defending 
            astrology. 'The story goes that when his colleague Edmund Halley put down 
            Astrology, Newton stood up to him and said "Sir, I have studied it, you
            have not!"' 

            I must admit that your arguments about the "Hubble telescope" remind me a 
            lot of one of my colleagues in the Faculty of Aerospace Engineering, who 
            used to say: "If I can't see it, it doesn't exist". Some scientist he is. 
            Most of the electromagnetic wave lengths, for instance, are not visible 
            to a human eye, and yet you wouldn't dare say that they don't exist. The 
            "Hubble Telescope" is merely a product of contemporary earthly science and 
            technology, which are relatively "primitive", and based on contemporary 
            (and therefore EPHEMERAL) scientific theories, as formulated by 
            contemporary (and EPHEMERAL) earthlings (ahem..scientists). Nothing as 
            EPHEMERAL as contemporary science and technology can serve as a basis for 
            proving or disproving the existence or validity of anything.  Earthy 
            Science and technology have a very long way to go, before earthly 
            scientists can claim they fully understand what the Universe is really 
            like, and whether or not any of the Stars or heavenly bodies that the 
            "Hubble Telescope" can detect is really what we choose to believe it is 
            (remember, these are all THEORIES, that none of us can either prove or 
            disprove). The only thing our telescopes can do is measure Radiation. Can 
            you really prove the source of this radiation is what you believe it is 
            (physical 'heavenly bodies' out there in space)? No, you cannot. This is 
            merely a belief  that we learned to treat as "the ultimate truth", because 
            that's what our teachers and books told us.... 
 
 

There are other "points" that traditional (i.e. non - Uranian) astrologers use that actually do not exist in the physical plane :
  Moons Nodes,  Part of Fortune & East Point,
  Midpoints , AS,  MC, House cusps, Vertex, Anti-Vertex, 
  Arabic  Parts,  Ansticion, Contransticion.