Posted on Jun 5, 2023
How will the Army transition with transgender in open showers?
70.1K
1.52K
497
185
185
0
I was doing field rotation that had open showers and had a thought about Transgender personell and how the be treated by other personell. I talked to a female an she said she upset if transwomen in her shower if they still had there male genitals. I asked a male the same thing and he said he wouldn't care. He said "If they identify as a man I will treat them like a man". How would you personally feel about this.
ADMIN NOTE: Be respectful to other RP members who may be in the transgender community.
ADMIN NOTE: Be respectful to other RP members who may be in the transgender community.
Transgender
Logistics
Regulation
Posted 2 y ago
Responses: 150
97
97
0
As discussed in our S1 one weekend back in 2018 when I was with the old 1st BDE, Pacific Division 75th Training Command The big problem is that those small group of soldiers Sailors and Airmen who join the military just to get their transgender surgery means that they will be non-mission capable for at least 2 years. We discussed this in our Brigade back in 2018. I foresee that females who complain to their superiors about transgender men will be disciplined and somebody be kicked out of the army when they have a bona fide reason to complain. This will only go away once this regime is voted out of office. People purposely joining the military to have transgender surgeries is not going to help retention. Those military personnel who are stuck in limbo getting their surgeries and not being able to deploy for 2 years will put a real strain on the system not to mention taxpayer dollars because they join the military to change General markers but not to serve our country.
(97)
(0)
SFC Robert Walton
SPC Amanda Ramsey - Planed parent hood does not foot the bill. Who is going to pay for it? Just like going to Prision some one has to pay.
(0)
(0)
Cpl Craig Howard
Anyone that is Non-Mission capable for 2 years needs to not be in the service until they can serve like anyone else. Maternity leave is much shorter than that and is understandable. I feel we all bleed Green, (or what ever color the Navy picked for today). Pull those boots up, serve like you said you would, handle your issues on your time and dime.
(1)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
Cpl Craig Howard President Trump stopped this waste of money and a couple transgender people here say that some employers pay for the Frankenstein Surgery instead so it is not an incentive for trans people to enlist. Less stigma and other entities pay for it when first posted 2 years ago. Now we will not have NMC oddball gender dysphoria service members affecting the good order and discipline of our military. Joining is a privilege and not a right. So many factors or deformities can make you a medical 4F failure. I am glad it is resolved now. I am sure most former service members meant well with their gender dysphoria. It is now an official exclusion. DEI is out! CPT (Join to see) MAJ Montgomery Granger SGT Ruben Lozada CPL Larry Frias Jr CSM Darieus ZaGara COL Randall C. Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth Cpl Vic Burk LTC Trent Klug Lt Col Charlie Brown CSM Darieus ZaGara Cpl Vic Burk
(1)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
LTC (Join to see) - That was literally DAY ONE of my Company Command. I'm sure I've told this before. Soldier comes into my office after change of command ceremony. Discloses HE (prior Female transitioning to Male) was a SHE, and all that comes with it. Surprise to me. I knew the soldier for the previous 2 years (he was in another platoon). I always thought it was a dude (the chosen identifier). Probably the ONLY transgender situation I totally could see it justified. Straight up genetics mixing up. You'd NEVER know he was originally female.
Soon thereafter a Major who was Transgender briefed my unit the new policy being put out by the Obama administration.
Anyway.................... lord almighty.................... what a cluster this caused when we were arranging an extended FTX, and the sister BN that was going to be my higher during the exercise owned the shower systems. So the LTC of the WHOLE BN for logistics for the FTX was going to PLACE HERSELF at the entrance of the showers and ENFORCE BY HER SILVER OAK LEAVES the privacy of the soldier in question.
What ended up happening between the planning of the exercise details was President Trump won his first term, and the soldier in question hit their ETS, and decided not to re-enlist.
Had the soldier re-enlisted, and managed to survive President Trump's first term the soldier would have had to eventually been identified in DEERS and MALE. At which point the soldier's APFT standard was going to be MALE. So the writing was on the wall by that time.
Fast forward to the soldier's ETS packet, and I forwarded said packet with two other packets on a Sunday of Battle Assembly. Published orders for the discharge of the completed term of the enlistment were in my Mil Mail the following Monday. I had been in the USAR 7 years by thing. I hadn't ever seen such a ETS process happen faster than 3 months. When the right signature powers that be care then shit gets done. The two other soldiers at that time just happen to get lucky to ride those coat tails of bureaucratic motivation.
********************
Fast forward to a few months ago. A new E/O brief was being given to us. This time not by a Transgender Major, but just a minority female NCO.
The phrase (two words) "Gender Identity" had been struck entirely from the training material. Otherwise the material was exactly the same. Soldiers have a sex, and do not have E/O protection based on a gender they might identify as.
I could feel a sigh of relief in the room.
Now........................ this doesn't mean one bit that it gives any category of soldiers to be targeted openly. We still have to treat everyone professionally, and whatever nonsense one might think of using for targeting someone based on a protection category that no longer exists is still wide open for enforcement through "Hostile Work Environment".
But we don't have to play along anymore, and can just get down to business.
I presume this will all flip back around in 4 years. By then I'll be at year 18 of my service and out by time anything ramps back up to where we were just at.
Soon thereafter a Major who was Transgender briefed my unit the new policy being put out by the Obama administration.
Anyway.................... lord almighty.................... what a cluster this caused when we were arranging an extended FTX, and the sister BN that was going to be my higher during the exercise owned the shower systems. So the LTC of the WHOLE BN for logistics for the FTX was going to PLACE HERSELF at the entrance of the showers and ENFORCE BY HER SILVER OAK LEAVES the privacy of the soldier in question.
What ended up happening between the planning of the exercise details was President Trump won his first term, and the soldier in question hit their ETS, and decided not to re-enlist.
Had the soldier re-enlisted, and managed to survive President Trump's first term the soldier would have had to eventually been identified in DEERS and MALE. At which point the soldier's APFT standard was going to be MALE. So the writing was on the wall by that time.
Fast forward to the soldier's ETS packet, and I forwarded said packet with two other packets on a Sunday of Battle Assembly. Published orders for the discharge of the completed term of the enlistment were in my Mil Mail the following Monday. I had been in the USAR 7 years by thing. I hadn't ever seen such a ETS process happen faster than 3 months. When the right signature powers that be care then shit gets done. The two other soldiers at that time just happen to get lucky to ride those coat tails of bureaucratic motivation.
********************
Fast forward to a few months ago. A new E/O brief was being given to us. This time not by a Transgender Major, but just a minority female NCO.
The phrase (two words) "Gender Identity" had been struck entirely from the training material. Otherwise the material was exactly the same. Soldiers have a sex, and do not have E/O protection based on a gender they might identify as.
I could feel a sigh of relief in the room.
Now........................ this doesn't mean one bit that it gives any category of soldiers to be targeted openly. We still have to treat everyone professionally, and whatever nonsense one might think of using for targeting someone based on a protection category that no longer exists is still wide open for enforcement through "Hostile Work Environment".
But we don't have to play along anymore, and can just get down to business.
I presume this will all flip back around in 4 years. By then I'll be at year 18 of my service and out by time anything ramps back up to where we were just at.
(1)
(0)
76
71
5
Every now and then we all have this conversation. I imagine it started when black people were integrated into the military, then women, then homosexuals, then women in combat units and now transgender.
A couple points: 1. all Soldiers are entitled to be treated with dignity and respect. Regardless of whatever excuse we have to dislike certain aspects. They volunteered to serve. We should let them. There has been no evidence of a depreciation of readiness in any integrated units (regardless of the characterization of integration: race, gender, age, etc)
2. Soldiers must accept living and working conditions that are often austere, primitive, and characterized by little or no privacy. We went from open stall bathrooms and showers in all billets to private rooms, but the expectation of privacy is a "nice to have" not a requirement. If female Soldiers are examining the "equipment" of fellow Soldiers, perhaps they should mind their own, do what they need to do and get out of the shower. The same goes for males. A lot of civilians would be uncomfortable showering in an open bay, but we do not change anything for them. Some places even have mixed gender bathrooms with individual stalls and showers.
3. Most integration efforts suffer from ignorance and preconceived notions and bias. Soldiers diagnosed with Gender Dysphoria do not get to change their gender marker until they are medically cleared. Until then, they are treated as the gender marker they enlisted with. The Real Life Experience (RLE) phase begins only during off-duty hours. Most Soldiers are not even aware someone is diagnosed with Gender Dysphoria and some don't even pursue transition because it is not medically necessary. The ones I have met wait to change their gender marker until they PCS as part of their RLE transition to full time.
4. Civilians with a history of gender dysphoria are accessed the same way as anyone else with a medical condition that impact military service. High impacts will always require a waiver. The Army was already providing medically necessary care for other preexisting behavioral health conditions (counseling, medication, etc).
This is a small unit issue that will depend on the professionalism of the Soldiers assigned around them. If everyone is a grown up, there are no problems. If someone does not like it, they can sit down with their 1SG/CDR who will tell them the same thing.
Females in the Army have more to fear from male Soldiers than from female transgender Soldiers. Female Soldiers are more likely to be sexually assaulted by a male Soldier than being injured by the enemy. We have bigger fish to fry than what someone is rocking between their legs in the shower. If they are performing to expectations, then we treat them with dignity and respect and move out.
A couple points: 1. all Soldiers are entitled to be treated with dignity and respect. Regardless of whatever excuse we have to dislike certain aspects. They volunteered to serve. We should let them. There has been no evidence of a depreciation of readiness in any integrated units (regardless of the characterization of integration: race, gender, age, etc)
2. Soldiers must accept living and working conditions that are often austere, primitive, and characterized by little or no privacy. We went from open stall bathrooms and showers in all billets to private rooms, but the expectation of privacy is a "nice to have" not a requirement. If female Soldiers are examining the "equipment" of fellow Soldiers, perhaps they should mind their own, do what they need to do and get out of the shower. The same goes for males. A lot of civilians would be uncomfortable showering in an open bay, but we do not change anything for them. Some places even have mixed gender bathrooms with individual stalls and showers.
3. Most integration efforts suffer from ignorance and preconceived notions and bias. Soldiers diagnosed with Gender Dysphoria do not get to change their gender marker until they are medically cleared. Until then, they are treated as the gender marker they enlisted with. The Real Life Experience (RLE) phase begins only during off-duty hours. Most Soldiers are not even aware someone is diagnosed with Gender Dysphoria and some don't even pursue transition because it is not medically necessary. The ones I have met wait to change their gender marker until they PCS as part of their RLE transition to full time.
4. Civilians with a history of gender dysphoria are accessed the same way as anyone else with a medical condition that impact military service. High impacts will always require a waiver. The Army was already providing medically necessary care for other preexisting behavioral health conditions (counseling, medication, etc).
This is a small unit issue that will depend on the professionalism of the Soldiers assigned around them. If everyone is a grown up, there are no problems. If someone does not like it, they can sit down with their 1SG/CDR who will tell them the same thing.
Females in the Army have more to fear from male Soldiers than from female transgender Soldiers. Female Soldiers are more likely to be sexually assaulted by a male Soldier than being injured by the enemy. We have bigger fish to fry than what someone is rocking between their legs in the shower. If they are performing to expectations, then we treat them with dignity and respect and move out.
(76)
(5)
MSG (Join to see)
This is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. It shouldn't even be a topic of conversation. Mentally ill people are not fit to serve in the first place. Secondly we should not be encouraging or enabling it. This only serves to weaken our ranks along with the leadership idealogy that is in favor of it. If you are ok with this then please ETS so you're not holding a position of leadership for yhe people with common sense to move us fwd in an effective way. There are two genders PERIOD!! If anyone is confused about it then open a medical book and look between your legs. "TRANS" people still sexually assault the opposite biological sex. Get it together folks. I said what I said.
(6)
(0)
CSM William Everroad
MSG (Join to see) - your position is based on you making a determination of which Army policies are worth following. "Mentally ill" as a facet of "incomparable with military service" is a characterization that is not ours to make. It has nothing to do with what leaders "are in favor of" or not. I have not seen any examples where there has been a weakening of ranks in this, there are a few studies that found that transgender Soldiers have been documented as successfully serving out their contracts even under DADT without transitioning. But, you are correct, the Army currently only recognizes two genders and it appears that will remain unchanged. I find your claim that "trans people still sexually assault the opposite biological sex" specious and irrelevant. In the military the overwhelming, not even close, offender of military sexual assaults are cisgender men assaulting cisgender and transgender women. I could not find even 1 article of a transgender Soldier assaulting anyone, if you have that reference that makes it relevant to your position, I would be happy to take a look and amend my view. This is, after all, a conversation.
I will participate in Senior leader forums that discuss and solicit our feedback from the field, consider and provide relevant feedback to senior leaders, you do you and fight the good fight, rail against social experimentation and sit in the corners of the NCO club with like minded senior enlisted bemoaning the current policies of "big Army". But I advise caution, because I have seen this type of narrow view before when homosexuality was deemed "incompatible to military service" and a social ill that had no place in the military. I saw quite a few senior leaders with positions similar to yours that stood by and sometimes even participated, while good Soldiers were bullied, assaulted, forced to quit for merely the suspicion of being homosexual. Leaders ceded their responsibility to maintain good order and discipline in their own units and train professional Soldiers. I will continue to train and mentor all Soldiers assigned to me to be professionals who treat American Soldiers and citizens with dignity and respect, throw their ruck on and move out. You are welcome to join me.
I will participate in Senior leader forums that discuss and solicit our feedback from the field, consider and provide relevant feedback to senior leaders, you do you and fight the good fight, rail against social experimentation and sit in the corners of the NCO club with like minded senior enlisted bemoaning the current policies of "big Army". But I advise caution, because I have seen this type of narrow view before when homosexuality was deemed "incompatible to military service" and a social ill that had no place in the military. I saw quite a few senior leaders with positions similar to yours that stood by and sometimes even participated, while good Soldiers were bullied, assaulted, forced to quit for merely the suspicion of being homosexual. Leaders ceded their responsibility to maintain good order and discipline in their own units and train professional Soldiers. I will continue to train and mentor all Soldiers assigned to me to be professionals who treat American Soldiers and citizens with dignity and respect, throw their ruck on and move out. You are welcome to join me.
(1)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
CSM William Everroad - Really? I have a close relative who was in the squad led by one of the very first trans soldiers in the infantry. He said the guy was an absolute nightmare, and got away with abusing his troops BECAUSE he was "protected". None of the squad my relative was with re-upped, and these were some really good soldiers. He was foul-mouthed and did NOT get any kind of surgery - just liked to wear his hair long, wear make-up and dresses in his down time, and make crude jokes about his soldiers. Anecdotal? Sure, but that doesn't mean it is untrue and shows that it CAN affect small unit readiness. Further, just because an active duty soldier or soldiers don't submit a complaint doesn't mean everything is hunky-dory. I challenge YOU to give an example of a trans combat NCO successful in leading his troops on an actual combat deployment. I'll go make some lo-carb nachos for you.
(0)
(0)
CSM William Everroad
SSG (Join to see) - It may be anecdotal, but it is an experience that people talk about, which decreases morale and good order. It sucks that this experience resulted in the loss of what were probably great Soldiers with long careers ahead of them.
However, this is more an example of toxic and ineffective leadership rather than a personal attribute. Just because the leader is terrible it isn't because of some trait about them, they are simply a shitty leader/ person. The Army has processes in place to deal with them, and too often, we don't utilize them. The perception that this failed leader was "protected" is also pretty common. Senior leaders tend to promote mediocrity or perform punitive transfers to hand the problem off to someone else. It feels easier than dealing with the issues head-on. We have some truly terrible Leaders in positions of authority who are doing long-term damage to individual Soldiers, yet they remain in position. And 99% of the time, it isn't because of their gender, race, or ethnicity. The leadership requirements model doesn't change based on some random trait. Senior Leaders tolerate these garbage leaders in our formations.
I saw the same types of stuff when the Army first permitted females to serve in Combat Engineer units. Judgements like: they can't meet the physical demands of the job, they won't pass Sapper Leader Course, they can't stay in the field for full rotations, they can't lead because they are too emotional. I was a 1SG at the time, and when I got my first female, I treated her like every other Soldier and ensured that the PSG set the same expectations. She could not keep up, both physically and mentally, and requested a transfer. But at the same time, 3 male Soldiers were in the same boat; failing basic tasks, mediocre fitness performance, etc. Eventually, we started getting more and more females who were suited to the job, some performing in the top 10% of the company, including a female LT, who we ended up sending to the Sapper Leader Course. Other Companies in the Battalion were not so cut and dry, I heard about Leaders having issues with their females being demanding and requesting special treatment or disposition. I am not going to pretend that the transition was easy; some old-school senior NCOs retired because of the integration, citing "social experimentation" and "degradation of readiness". That unit deployed and performed very well. It is not lost on me that the Engineer motto is, "Let Us Try". My stance is to give Soldiers a chance to prove themselves, we can't be all we can be if we keep putting roadblocks in front of our troops.
However, this thread is now irrelevant considering current DoD policies. I will stand by my position that if someone wants to serve their country and make the same sacrifices that we all do, we should let them serve, provided they can maintain regulatory standards. Sure, there will be continuing conversations about what physical/mental/behavioural conditions are incompatible with military service or even specific CMFs. But at the end of the day, until such a time as I am in a position to weigh in on those decisions, my job is to maintain good order and discipline on behalf of the commander as well as train, develop and mentor the Soldiers assigned, foster successful teams, so that we all may succeed in our chosen career paths while treating all Soldiers with dignity and respect.
However, this is more an example of toxic and ineffective leadership rather than a personal attribute. Just because the leader is terrible it isn't because of some trait about them, they are simply a shitty leader/ person. The Army has processes in place to deal with them, and too often, we don't utilize them. The perception that this failed leader was "protected" is also pretty common. Senior leaders tend to promote mediocrity or perform punitive transfers to hand the problem off to someone else. It feels easier than dealing with the issues head-on. We have some truly terrible Leaders in positions of authority who are doing long-term damage to individual Soldiers, yet they remain in position. And 99% of the time, it isn't because of their gender, race, or ethnicity. The leadership requirements model doesn't change based on some random trait. Senior Leaders tolerate these garbage leaders in our formations.
I saw the same types of stuff when the Army first permitted females to serve in Combat Engineer units. Judgements like: they can't meet the physical demands of the job, they won't pass Sapper Leader Course, they can't stay in the field for full rotations, they can't lead because they are too emotional. I was a 1SG at the time, and when I got my first female, I treated her like every other Soldier and ensured that the PSG set the same expectations. She could not keep up, both physically and mentally, and requested a transfer. But at the same time, 3 male Soldiers were in the same boat; failing basic tasks, mediocre fitness performance, etc. Eventually, we started getting more and more females who were suited to the job, some performing in the top 10% of the company, including a female LT, who we ended up sending to the Sapper Leader Course. Other Companies in the Battalion were not so cut and dry, I heard about Leaders having issues with their females being demanding and requesting special treatment or disposition. I am not going to pretend that the transition was easy; some old-school senior NCOs retired because of the integration, citing "social experimentation" and "degradation of readiness". That unit deployed and performed very well. It is not lost on me that the Engineer motto is, "Let Us Try". My stance is to give Soldiers a chance to prove themselves, we can't be all we can be if we keep putting roadblocks in front of our troops.
However, this thread is now irrelevant considering current DoD policies. I will stand by my position that if someone wants to serve their country and make the same sacrifices that we all do, we should let them serve, provided they can maintain regulatory standards. Sure, there will be continuing conversations about what physical/mental/behavioural conditions are incompatible with military service or even specific CMFs. But at the end of the day, until such a time as I am in a position to weigh in on those decisions, my job is to maintain good order and discipline on behalf of the commander as well as train, develop and mentor the Soldiers assigned, foster successful teams, so that we all may succeed in our chosen career paths while treating all Soldiers with dignity and respect.
(0)
(0)
I've seen comments regarding a transitioning Soldier and thought I'd lay out the Active Duty process (there is a different process for reserve component, IRR, and ING Soldiers). BTW - I'm rendering no opinion in support for or against the process - just laying out what it is.
As I mentioned elsewhere, until the gender marker in DEERS is changed, Soldiers will still be treated as whatever is reflected. Furthermore, the gender marker isn't something that is changed because a Soldier decides that they want it changed and go to the RAPIDS office and implement it. It takes a while for the process to happen.
First the Soldier has to be diagnosed with gender dysphoria, the medical provider has to indicate gender transition treatment is medically necessary (note, this does not automatically mean gender transition surgery), and then they develop a treatment plan.
After that, a brigade-level commander has to approve the timing of the transition (again, not necessarily 'surgery', but changing the DEERS identification and how they will be treated) weighing the treatment plan and the the Soldier's individual circumstances, impact to military readiness and the mission, as well as the morale, welfare, good order and discipline of the unit. This will very likely be done in concert with the Soldier's commander regarding personnel impacts, upcoming missions, etc.
Once a time-line is established, and assuming nothing changes it, after the Solder completes medical treatment and the provider notifies the commander that the Soldier has achieved stability in the self-identified gender along with a recommendation of when the change in DEERS should happen.
At that point the Soldier can request that the change actually happen along with all the documentation necessary (medical diagnosis & confirmation from provider, legal documentation, etc). The brigade level command will consult with the Service Central Coordination Cell (SCCC) at the ASA (M&RA) and has 30 days to review the packet to ensure it's complete. Assuming everything is in order, THEN the commander will approve the request, including a date when the PAR to change the gender can occur in IPPS-A.
As I mentioned elsewhere, until the gender marker in DEERS is changed, Soldiers will still be treated as whatever is reflected. Furthermore, the gender marker isn't something that is changed because a Soldier decides that they want it changed and go to the RAPIDS office and implement it. It takes a while for the process to happen.
First the Soldier has to be diagnosed with gender dysphoria, the medical provider has to indicate gender transition treatment is medically necessary (note, this does not automatically mean gender transition surgery), and then they develop a treatment plan.
After that, a brigade-level commander has to approve the timing of the transition (again, not necessarily 'surgery', but changing the DEERS identification and how they will be treated) weighing the treatment plan and the the Soldier's individual circumstances, impact to military readiness and the mission, as well as the morale, welfare, good order and discipline of the unit. This will very likely be done in concert with the Soldier's commander regarding personnel impacts, upcoming missions, etc.
Once a time-line is established, and assuming nothing changes it, after the Solder completes medical treatment and the provider notifies the commander that the Soldier has achieved stability in the self-identified gender along with a recommendation of when the change in DEERS should happen.
At that point the Soldier can request that the change actually happen along with all the documentation necessary (medical diagnosis & confirmation from provider, legal documentation, etc). The brigade level command will consult with the Service Central Coordination Cell (SCCC) at the ASA (M&RA) and has 30 days to review the packet to ensure it's complete. Assuming everything is in order, THEN the commander will approve the request, including a date when the PAR to change the gender can occur in IPPS-A.
(48)
(0)
A1C Medrick "Rick" DeVaney
COL Randall Cudworth,
Being And Independent Voter AND Person,
I'm A Staunch CONSERVATIVE ~ I'm A Staunch LIBERAL ~
Give Me An Issue THEN I'll Decide. Although I Have Several
Gay/Lesbian Friends As Well As A Lesbian Grand Daughter,
I'd Simply Not Allow Any To Enter The Service ~ I Consider Their Issues,
Socialization & Command Issues & The Expenses Involved In Their Health Care &
Requested Elective Surgeries, And I Come Up With A ZERO Reason For Them To Be
Allowed Into The Service Any Military Level ~ Few Could Serves For But A Few Purposes, Simply Due To So Many Issues, And Their Acceptance From The Others
Being And Independent Voter AND Person,
I'm A Staunch CONSERVATIVE ~ I'm A Staunch LIBERAL ~
Give Me An Issue THEN I'll Decide. Although I Have Several
Gay/Lesbian Friends As Well As A Lesbian Grand Daughter,
I'd Simply Not Allow Any To Enter The Service ~ I Consider Their Issues,
Socialization & Command Issues & The Expenses Involved In Their Health Care &
Requested Elective Surgeries, And I Come Up With A ZERO Reason For Them To Be
Allowed Into The Service Any Military Level ~ Few Could Serves For But A Few Purposes, Simply Due To So Many Issues, And Their Acceptance From The Others
(4)
(0)
SPC Daniel Brown
Ok while I was in the Army and later on Navy reserve we were given commands through the Military Manuels of Regulations that we followed and obeyed any and all Lawful orders. Now with that being said there have always been gays in the service and as long as they did their job and never pressed their personal way of thinking onto others (they didn't) then everyone was good to go. Trans should be treated the same way with exceptions ex: they are with their assigned sex m/f until after a surgery is performed and then a reassignment can happen. Also anytime lost due to this type of surgery is added to the enlistment and not counted as time served. I know that may seem harsh but if someone joins for that reason of a free surgery this may persuade them to try another way without joining and wasting valuable training time and cost.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google 
