CVS goes woke

Then why so much emphasis on deranged? This is an out. Take it. Please.

Love your scientific pole poll, btw. How many respondents? Originally Posted by HDGristle

I didn't put so much emphasis on deranged - that is you reading into that. Now I did say tranny's are mentally disturbed which I stand by as anyone who thinks they are a different gender has some psychological issues

On the poll, we had a little more than 150 employees, about two thirds of whom were women

You did say mentally disturbed multiple times, but you should have taken the out.

The mental state is part of the pre-judgement.

As for the poll, do you have the questions? I'd love the see the wording.

Please also confirm if the locker rooms were changing areas. That's not the case for the vaat majority of CVS instances. So we'd have to agree that it seems like you're massively overestimating the overall risk level, yes? Especially if most of the restrooms, even the unisex are locking, single occupant. Yes?

And do you have an idea of how many transgender employees CVS has on average? Any demographics or geographical breakdowns? Any data at all that's germane to their stores, workforce or anything really relevant?

Well, funny thing about Twitter is that it can be broadcast to everyone and retweeted by everyone, it’s not just my followers. Originally Posted by Dreamgurrl

I know very well how Twitter works, thank you. It will still be a skewed sample as the people seeing it to retweet it would be your followers but have at it

I’ve connected the dots before you were born. Originally Posted by bambino

Wow! And still haven’t found the way out of the maze!

Good luck, buddy you got this just keep on trying.

As for the poll, do you have the questions? I'd love the see the wording. Originally Posted by HDGristle

No, as I mentioned, it was a few years ago before I retired. I didn't keep work materials once I retired

Please also confirm if the locker rooms were changing areas. Originally Posted by HDGristle

Shared locker and restrooms were the question - and yes the locker rooms were changing areas

Especially if most of the restrooms, even the unisex are locking, single occupant. Originally Posted by HDGristle

I am not focused on a unisex, locking, single occupant restroom. Those present no risk to what I am talking about. I have been talking about shared facilities.

And do you have an idea of how many transgender employees CVS has on average? Any demographics or geographical breakdowns? Originally Posted by HDGristle

No. But that is not really relevant to the policy they put in place that creates undue risk for women

You did say mentally disturbed multiple times, but you should have taken the out.

The mental state is part of the pre-judgement.

As for the poll, do you have the questions? I'd love the see the wording.

Please also confirm if the locker rooms were changing areas. That's not the case for the vaat majority of CVS instances. So we'd have to agree that it seems like you're massively overestimating the overall risk level, yes? Especially if most of the restrooms, even the unisex are locking, single occupant. Yes?

And do you have an idea of how many transgender employees CVS has on average? Any demographics or geographical breakdowns? Any data at all that's germane to their stores, workforce or anything really relevant? Originally Posted by HDGristle

Now Mr Gristle, this is anecdotal. But I’ve been to many CVS, Walgreens, RiteAids. I have yet to come across a Dylan Mulvaney type working there. I might have missed somebody in the stock room. But I’m willing to wager their % of Tranny’s in their employment is quite low.

No, as I mentioned, it was a few years ago before I retired. I didn't keep work materials once I retired



Shared locker and restrooms were the question - and yes the locker rooms were changing areas



I am not focused on a unisex, locking, single occupant restroom. Those present no risk to what I am talking about. I have been talking about shared facilities.



No. But that is not really relevant to the policy they put in place that creates undue risk for women Originally Posted by berryberry

Isn't it? Wouldn't those be material factors in determining actual risk vs imagined?

I personally find it terrifying that government is attempting to create legislature to affirm a bold face lie and delusion. True feminists feel that the trans (mostly straight white men masquerading as the most offensive stereotype of a woman) are invading woman's sports and spaces.. nobody is afraid of someone pretending to be a woman. The issue is teaching children that they may be born in the wrong body which leads to mutilation of body parts and unsafe hormone therapy.. you absolutely don't speak for all woman dream girl.

Isn't it? Wouldn't those be material factors in determining actual risk vs imagined? Originally Posted by HDGristle

You are trying to argue that it is ok to put a policy in place that increases risks to women as long as you don't have many people who will take advantage of said policy.

Really?

So you are ok with even just one woman being harmed by this policy?

I personally find it terrifying that government is attempting to create legislature to affirm a bold face lie and delusion. True feminists feel that the trans (mostly straight white men masquerading as the most offensive stereotype of a woman) are invading woman's sports and spaces.. nobody is afraid of someone pretending to be a woman. The issue is teaching children that they may be born in the wrong body which leads to mutilation of body parts and unsafe hormone therapy.. you absolutely don't speak for all woman dream girl. Originally Posted by Loretta77

Hi! Nice to meet you.

I didn’t say I speak for all women and this thread is not about hormone therapy.

I'm not ok with any woman being harmed. But you're kidding yourself as if that's the root cause of harm and the nature of those looking to do it.

I'm not ok with any woman being harmed. Originally Posted by HDGristle

Well at least we are on the same page there. Even though you continue to try to defend this policy that is dangerous to women

Now Mr Gristle, this is anecdotal. But I’ve been to many CVS, Walgreens, RiteAids. I have yet to come across a Dylan Mulvaney type working there. I might have missed somebody in the stock room. But I’m willing to wager their % of Tranny’s in their employment is quite low. Originally Posted by bambino

I’m sorry. Are you saying you are evaluating the predetermined sex or gender of a person just by looking at them?

Kinda making my point for me , thank you.

But of course bam is off topic and just obsessed with trolling me.

I’m sorry. Are you saying you are evaluating the predetermined sex or gender of a person just by looking at them?

Kinda making my point for me , thank you. Originally Posted by Dreamgurrl

I wasn’t quoting you. But yes, I can tell Lia Thompson is not a biological female, or Dylan Mulvaney or Ru Paul. It’s quite obvious. But that’s ok. If that’s want to do with yourself. Except for biological men competing in women’s sports. They prance around in the women’s locker rooms with their cocks dangling. While trouncing them on the field. That’s 100% wrong. I understand you’re a workout Queen. That’s great. But you couldn’t compete with Lia Thompson in a weightlifting competition. Or me. And I’m 15yrs older than you. But you and I have one very important thing in common. We’re both grandparents. It’s the way God, and nature intended. There’s no greater joy or accomplishment than being a grandparent. Connect the dots.

I’m sorry. Are you saying you are evaluating the predetermined sex or gender of a person just by looking at them?

Kinda making my point for me , thank you. Originally Posted by Dreamgurrl

How do you do it? Grab their crotch?

This shit gets sillier by the minute, society is doomed.