Supreme Court to hear case on opting out of lessons with LGBTQ+ books

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents in Montgomery Count, Maryland, want to be able to opt out of instruction on gender and sexuality that they say goes against their religious convictions.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/01/17/lgbtq-books-supreme-court-montgomery-maryland-schools-religion/

Why can't these a$$holes just go to parochial school? You cannot dictate public education according to religion. Nor should you.

It's you who should form your own private schools where you can peddle your fetish-driven religion to the children of fellow groomers like yourself. The normal people in society shouldn't be driven out of schools so you can run amok with your incessant sex talks.

+1000
It will never cease to astound me how much these people actually WANT to expose children to sexual topics. Why? I can't fathom the mind of someone who would promote this stuff to children.

What is with all your pearl clutching. People are sexual entities. They grow into that sexuality as the mature. No one is promoting anything sexual or religious wise to kids in school. They are just not shying away from letting kids make informed decisions. Sex exist. It exist in many forms besides the missionary position. Sexual health and responsibility exist. Folks should understand it just like they get taught about other health. LGBTQ people exist. Folks should be taught to respect their choices just like you expect people to respect yours.

How is any of this difficult to comprehend? Why is any of it controversial? Half the people claiming to reject it on religious reasons have many more other things in their lives which are counter to religion observance and behavior.

This is insane and ignoring reality. The fundamental problem is being gay is at its heart about one’s sexual behavior. It can only be one’s identity if he or she announces his or her sexual proclivities. In order to have pride in being gay even children need to know it involves sexual acts. It is the only way to normalize it - expose young children to sex. The problem is exposing children to sex at a young age breaks down the necessary and natural self defense of these kids that helps avoid being exploited or abused by adults. Normalizing sex for young kids means normalizing sexual acts by young kids.

Oh come on. You sound as crazy as the person you are responding to. It is quite possible to have books that casually have gay people as characters, no sex involved. Have a book with two gay parents and a kid, done. 99% of parents would be fine with that. You can easily have healthy, positive representation of gay people without exposing young kids to sex.

The problem is, that’s not what MoCo did. They took it much further. They picked books that had kids find drag queens, for instance, even though that’s a form of grossly sexist minstrelry. They picked books that asked kids to look for leather at pride parade. They picked books that presented as fact that children have a gender identity apart from their sex (which is a metaphysical and quasi-religious belief system, not reality).

If MoCo had just had books with gay parents, for instance, this case would not exist. But they went radically further and now there is going to be a ruling that is probably harmful for education overall, but also probably necessary to reign in radicalism in schools.

Exactly. And this lack of common sense is what erodes trust in the school systems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of you arguing that this is about religious freedom and not homophobia are strange. If a school taught a book where the main character eats pork, it would not be offensive to muslim or kosher students because they themselves aren't eating pork. Religious freedom is about what you do, not what the people around you do.

Wrong. The equivalent would be a school deliberately choosing to have teachers read a series of books about eating pork, and then launching a teacher-led classroom discussion about why it’s ok to eat pork, then saying parents can opt out from those lessons, and then rescinding that option under political pressure.

Get it now?

No it’s like reading a book where people are eating bacon for breakfast and asking to opt out because it’s pork.

Nope.

National review: “Teachers are instructed to lead classroom discussions about the books, which cite terms such as, “intersex,” “drag queen,” and “non-binary.” One book claims that doctors only “guess” when determining a newborn’s sex.” NTD: “The board instructed employees responsible for selecting the books to use an “LGBTQ+ Lens” and to question whether “cisnormativity,” “stereotypes,” and “power hierarchies” are “reinforced or disrupted,” the petition said.“

Trying to follow this issue, and I keep encountering one book in particular, the LGTBQIA+ positive graphic novel, Gender Queer. It appears some find it controversial.

Can someone post what seems to be so controversial about this novel?

We can’t, because the images are so graphic that they aren’t allowed to be posted on this site.

https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/115531/documents/HHRG-118-JU10-20230323-SD007.pdf

WARNING: that congressional document is NOT SAFE FOR WORK! The contents could subject you to discipline at work, due to the prohibition on viewing pornography at work.

The images are also prohibited on DCUMAD.

lol this ain’t the book in the lawsuit. God you people just say anything.

The link was posted because someone on this thread was asking about Gender Queer specifically. It was an issue in a separate parental rights lawsuit in Maryland.

but not the one that is the topic of this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents in Montgomery Count, Maryland, want to be able to opt out of instruction on gender and sexuality that they say goes against their religious convictions.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/01/17/lgbtq-books-supreme-court-montgomery-maryland-schools-religion/

Why can't these a$$holes just go to parochial school? You cannot dictate public education according to religion. Nor should you.

It's you who should form your own private schools where you can peddle your fetish-driven religion to the children of fellow groomers like yourself. The normal people in society shouldn't be driven out of schools so you can run amok with your incessant sex talks.

+1000
It will never cease to astound me how much these people actually WANT to expose children to sexual topics. Why? I can't fathom the mind of someone who would promote this stuff to children.

What is with all your pearl clutching. People are sexual entities. They grow into that sexuality as the mature. No one is promoting anything sexual or religious wise to kids in school. They are just not shying away from letting kids make informed decisions. Sex exist. It exist in many forms besides the missionary position. Sexual health and responsibility exist. Folks should understand it just like they get taught about other health. LGBTQ people exist. Folks should be taught to respect their choices just like you expect people to respect yours.

How is any of this difficult to comprehend? Why is any of it controversial? Half the people claiming to reject it on religious reasons have many more other things in their lives which are counter to religion observance and behavior.

This is insane and ignoring reality. The fundamental problem is being gay is at its heart about one’s sexual behavior. It can only be one’s identity if he or she announces his or her sexual proclivities. In order to have pride in being gay even children need to know it involves sexual acts. It is the only way to normalize it - expose young children to sex. The problem is exposing children to sex at a young age breaks down the necessary and natural self defense of these kids that helps avoid being exploited or abused by adults. Normalizing sex for young kids means normalizing sexual acts by young kids.

Well said.

[Anonymous]

God DCUM is vile.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:God DCUM is vile.

How so? I don’t see a lot of particularly vile posts. Jeff did delete a gross Islamophobic post from a trans activist, and I think he deleted a gross homophobic post from a homophobe, but for the most part this seems like a reasonable discussion.

Given that this is the subject of a Supreme Court case, it all seems relevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents in Montgomery Count, Maryland, want to be able to opt out of instruction on gender and sexuality that they say goes against their religious convictions.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/01/17/lgbtq-books-supreme-court-montgomery-maryland-schools-religion/

Why can't these a$$holes just go to parochial school? You cannot dictate public education according to religion. Nor should you.

It's you who should form your own private schools where you can peddle your fetish-driven religion to the children of fellow groomers like yourself. The normal people in society shouldn't be driven out of schools so you can run amok with your incessant sex talks.

+1000
It will never cease to astound me how much these people actually WANT to expose children to sexual topics. Why? I can't fathom the mind of someone who would promote this stuff to children.

What is with all your pearl clutching. People are sexual entities. They grow into that sexuality as the mature. No one is promoting anything sexual or religious wise to kids in school. They are just not shying away from letting kids make informed decisions. Sex exist. It exist in many forms besides the missionary position. Sexual health and responsibility exist. Folks should understand it just like they get taught about other health. LGBTQ people exist. Folks should be taught to respect their choices just like you expect people to respect yours.

How is any of this difficult to comprehend? Why is any of it controversial? Half the people claiming to reject it on religious reasons have many more other things in their lives which are counter to religion observance and behavior.

This is insane and ignoring reality. The fundamental problem is being gay is at its heart about one’s sexual behavior. It can only be one’s identity if he or she announces his or her sexual proclivities. In order to have pride in being gay even children need to know it involves sexual acts. It is the only way to normalize it - expose young children to sex. The problem is exposing children to sex at a young age breaks down the necessary and natural self defense of these kids that helps avoid being exploited or abused by adults. Normalizing sex for young kids means normalizing sexual acts by young kids.

Well said.

Tf?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents in Montgomery Count, Maryland, want to be able to opt out of instruction on gender and sexuality that they say goes against their religious convictions.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/01/17/lgbtq-books-supreme-court-montgomery-maryland-schools-religion/

Why can't these a$$holes just go to parochial school? You cannot dictate public education according to religion. Nor should you.

It's you who should form your own private schools where you can peddle your fetish-driven religion to the children of fellow groomers like yourself. The normal people in society shouldn't be driven out of schools so you can run amok with your incessant sex talks.

+1000
It will never cease to astound me how much these people actually WANT to expose children to sexual topics. Why? I can't fathom the mind of someone who would promote this stuff to children.

What is with all your pearl clutching. People are sexual entities. They grow into that sexuality as the mature. No one is promoting anything sexual or religious wise to kids in school. They are just not shying away from letting kids make informed decisions. Sex exist. It exist in many forms besides the missionary position. Sexual health and responsibility exist. Folks should understand it just like they get taught about other health. LGBTQ people exist. Folks should be taught to respect their choices just like you expect people to respect yours.

How is any of this difficult to comprehend? Why is any of it controversial? Half the people claiming to reject it on religious reasons have many more other things in their lives which are counter to religion observance and behavior.

This is insane and ignoring reality. The fundamental problem is being gay is at its heart about one’s sexual behavior. It can only be one’s identity if he or she announces his or her sexual proclivities. In order to have pride in being gay even children need to know it involves sexual acts. It is the only way to normalize it - expose young children to sex. The problem is exposing children to sex at a young age breaks down the necessary and natural self defense of these kids that helps avoid being exploited or abused by adults. Normalizing sex for young kids means normalizing sexual acts by young kids.

Well said.

Tf?!

What is “pride”? If not celebration of sexual proclivities then what are celebrants proud of?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yikes, this takedown of the MoCo attorney by Gorsuch was brutal.

Unreal that *anyone* would think that book is appropriate for the classroom.

Have you read the book? It’s literally an A to Z book that points out zero controversial things. The appendix of the books let you look for other things in the pictures and again, nothing controversial. There is no bondage is the book.

Yes, I've read the book. Please stop gaslighting. Telling readers to look for "leather, lip ring, and underwear" (among other "vocabulary" words) is insanity.

Also “intersex flag,” “drag king,” and “drag queen.”

Again, point to the page where this is required. A teacher could read the book and never ask this. Also is leather inherently a problem? Women walk around with leather purses all the time. Folks wear leather pants. Why is lip ring any worse than earring or bracelet?
Why is drag king or queen any worse than find the clown?

DP. You have issues. Enough said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents in Montgomery Count, Maryland, want to be able to opt out of instruction on gender and sexuality that they say goes against their religious convictions.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/01/17/lgbtq-books-supreme-court-montgomery-maryland-schools-religion/

Why can't these a$$holes just go to parochial school? You cannot dictate public education according to religion. Nor should you.

It's you who should form your own private schools where you can peddle your fetish-driven religion to the children of fellow groomers like yourself. The normal people in society shouldn't be driven out of schools so you can run amok with your incessant sex talks.

+1000
It will never cease to astound me how much these people actually WANT to expose children to sexual topics. Why? I can't fathom the mind of someone who would promote this stuff to children.

What is with all your pearl clutching. People are sexual entities. They grow into that sexuality as the mature. No one is promoting anything sexual or religious wise to kids in school. They are just not shying away from letting kids make informed decisions. Sex exist. It exist in many forms besides the missionary position. Sexual health and responsibility exist. Folks should understand it just like they get taught about other health. LGBTQ people exist. Folks should be taught to respect their choices just like you expect people to respect yours.

How is any of this difficult to comprehend? Why is any of it controversial? Half the people claiming to reject it on religious reasons have many more other things in their lives which are counter to religion observance and behavior.

This is insane and ignoring reality. The fundamental problem is being gay is at its heart about one’s sexual behavior. It can only be one’s identity if he or she announces his or her sexual proclivities. In order to have pride in being gay even children need to know it involves sexual acts. It is the only way to normalize it - expose young children to sex. The problem is exposing children to sex at a young age breaks down the necessary and natural self defense of these kids that helps avoid being exploited or abused by adults. Normalizing sex for young kids means normalizing sexual acts by young kids.

+100
Reading the insane posts by the PP makes it clear that there are most definitely people who WANT to expose young children to sexual concepts. These are the people we need to be aware of and frankly - afraid of. JFC.

[Anonymous]

+10000. I didn’t think of it this way. Wow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents in Montgomery Count, Maryland, want to be able to opt out of instruction on gender and sexuality that they say goes against their religious convictions.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/01/17/lgbtq-books-supreme-court-montgomery-maryland-schools-religion/

Why can't these a$$holes just go to parochial school? You cannot dictate public education according to religion. Nor should you.

It's you who should form your own private schools where you can peddle your fetish-driven religion to the children of fellow groomers like yourself. The normal people in society shouldn't be driven out of schools so you can run amok with your incessant sex talks.

+1000
It will never cease to astound me how much these people actually WANT to expose children to sexual topics. Why? I can't fathom the mind of someone who would promote this stuff to children.

What is with all your pearl clutching. People are sexual entities. They grow into that sexuality as the mature. No one is promoting anything sexual or religious wise to kids in school. They are just not shying away from letting kids make informed decisions. Sex exist. It exist in many forms besides the missionary position. Sexual health and responsibility exist. Folks should understand it just like they get taught about other health. LGBTQ people exist. Folks should be taught to respect their choices just like you expect people to respect yours.

How is any of this difficult to comprehend? Why is any of it controversial? Half the people claiming to reject it on religious reasons have many more other things in their lives which are counter to religion observance and behavior.

This is insane and ignoring reality. The fundamental problem is being gay is at its heart about one’s sexual behavior. It can only be one’s identity if he or she announces his or her sexual proclivities. In order to have pride in being gay even children need to know it involves sexual acts. It is the only way to normalize it - expose young children to sex. The problem is exposing children to sex at a young age breaks down the necessary and natural self defense of these kids that helps avoid being exploited or abused by adults. Normalizing sex for young kids means normalizing sexual acts by young kids.

Oh come on. You sound as crazy as the person you are responding to. It is quite possible to have books that casually have gay people as characters, no sex involved. Have a book with two gay parents and a kid, done. 99% of parents would be fine with that. You can easily have healthy, positive representation of gay people without exposing young kids to sex.

The problem is, that’s not what MoCo did. They took it much further. They picked books that had kids find drag queens, for instance, even though that’s a form of grossly sexist minstrelry. They picked books that asked kids to look for leather at pride parade. They picked books that presented as fact that children have a gender identity apart from their sex (which is a metaphysical and quasi-religious belief system, not reality).

If MoCo had just had books with gay parents, for instance, this case would not exist. But they went radically further and now there is going to be a ruling that is probably harmful for education overall, but also probably necessary to reign in radicalism in schools.

Exactly. And this lack of common sense is what erodes trust in the school systems.

+1. Read “grandpa’s pride” and ask yourself why some individuals want 7 year olds reading books that depict gay men in leather fetish gear making out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents in Montgomery Count, Maryland, want to be able to opt out of instruction on gender and sexuality that they say goes against their religious convictions.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/01/17/lgbtq-books-supreme-court-montgomery-maryland-schools-religion/

Why can't these a$$holes just go to parochial school? You cannot dictate public education according to religion. Nor should you.

It's you who should form your own private schools where you can peddle your fetish-driven religion to the children of fellow groomers like yourself. The normal people in society shouldn't be driven out of schools so you can run amok with your incessant sex talks.

+1000
It will never cease to astound me how much these people actually WANT to expose children to sexual topics. Why? I can't fathom the mind of someone who would promote this stuff to children.

What is with all your pearl clutching. People are sexual entities. They grow into that sexuality as the mature. No one is promoting anything sexual or religious wise to kids in school. They are just not shying away from letting kids make informed decisions. Sex exist. It exist in many forms besides the missionary position. Sexual health and responsibility exist. Folks should understand it just like they get taught about other health. LGBTQ people exist. Folks should be taught to respect their choices just like you expect people to respect yours.

How is any of this difficult to comprehend? Why is any of it controversial? Half the people claiming to reject it on religious reasons have many more other things in their lives which are counter to religion observance and behavior.

This is insane and ignoring reality. The fundamental problem is being gay is at its heart about one’s sexual behavior. It can only be one’s identity if he or she announces his or her sexual proclivities. In order to have pride in being gay even children need to know it involves sexual acts. It is the only way to normalize it - expose young children to sex. The problem is exposing children to sex at a young age breaks down the necessary and natural self defense of these kids that helps avoid being exploited or abused by adults. Normalizing sex for young kids means normalizing sexual acts by young kids.

Well said.

I completely understand where you are coming from with these concerns as a parent. Some of these books MOCO was using are definitely not appropriate for elementary aged children to read. However, the same argument about “being gay fundementally being about sexual behavior” could also be made for straight people. Should we also ban any books that have a relationship between a man and a woman as well. I suspect that you think this argument is nonsensical, but it seems like a double standard if you think any book that includes gay people is not appropriate for children. I am gay and I don't necessarily agree with children books that predominantly focus on someones identity as the topic of a book, but I am worried that this the outcome of this court ruling will effectively ban any books that have gay people in them (even incidentally) in public schools. I don't want my kids reading pride puppy either, but the implications of this court ruling are likely much larger than the absurd books that MOCO had in their curriculum. Will my kid be allowed to share a story about their summer vacation with their two dads or do parents with religious objections get to opt out of this story as well? Will a book that has a main character who is a single mother be unable to be read in class because some devoutly religious parents are opposed to this “lifestyle”. Parents having unlimited religious opt-out rights effectively becomes a veto authority over sections of the curriculum if people utilize it enough that it makes a teachers workload impossible to manage. Most Teachers don't have the time to make alternative lesson plans for every topic. They will just start removing any books with potential religious objections preemptively to avoid creating extra work for themselves.

[Anonymous]

After the Supreme Court gives these parents what they want, are they going to pull If You Give a Pig a Pancake and Charlotte’s Web from the shelves of school libraries? Pigs are haram.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents in Montgomery Count, Maryland, want to be able to opt out of instruction on gender and sexuality that they say goes against their religious convictions.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/01/17/lgbtq-books-supreme-court-montgomery-maryland-schools-religion/

Why can't these a$$holes just go to parochial school? You cannot dictate public education according to religion. Nor should you.

It's you who should form your own private schools where you can peddle your fetish-driven religion to the children of fellow groomers like yourself. The normal people in society shouldn't be driven out of schools so you can run amok with your incessant sex talks.

+1000
It will never cease to astound me how much these people actually WANT to expose children to sexual topics. Why? I can't fathom the mind of someone who would promote this stuff to children.

What is with all your pearl clutching. People are sexual entities. They grow into that sexuality as the mature. No one is promoting anything sexual or religious wise to kids in school. They are just not shying away from letting kids make informed decisions. Sex exist. It exist in many forms besides the missionary position. Sexual health and responsibility exist. Folks should understand it just like they get taught about other health. LGBTQ people exist. Folks should be taught to respect their choices just like you expect people to respect yours.

How is any of this difficult to comprehend? Why is any of it controversial? Half the people claiming to reject it on religious reasons have many more other things in their lives which are counter to religion observance and behavior.

This is insane and ignoring reality. The fundamental problem is being gay is at its heart about one’s sexual behavior. It can only be one’s identity if he or she announces his or her sexual proclivities. In order to have pride in being gay even children need to know it involves sexual acts. It is the only way to normalize it - expose young children to sex. The problem is exposing children to sex at a young age breaks down the necessary and natural self defense of these kids that helps avoid being exploited or abused by adults. Normalizing sex for young kids means normalizing sexual acts by young kids.

So you think kids shouldn’t even learn what gay is?? Is being heterosexual fundamentally about sex? I agree that some of the materials should be rethought & parents allowed to opt out, but trying to censor even the existence of gay people in the name of protecting kids from supposed child abuse is just nuts.

and fwiw many if not most kids by 5 have gotten some learning about reproduction. They want to know how the baby got in mommy’s tummy. The way parents choose to teach this is very individual but many do give a very basic version of the birds & bees at that age.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents in Montgomery Count, Maryland, want to be able to opt out of instruction on gender and sexuality that they say goes against their religious convictions.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/01/17/lgbtq-books-supreme-court-montgomery-maryland-schools-religion/

Why can't these a$$holes just go to parochial school? You cannot dictate public education according to religion. Nor should you.

It's you who should form your own private schools where you can peddle your fetish-driven religion to the children of fellow groomers like yourself. The normal people in society shouldn't be driven out of schools so you can run amok with your incessant sex talks.

+1000
It will never cease to astound me how much these people actually WANT to expose children to sexual topics. Why? I can't fathom the mind of someone who would promote this stuff to children.

What is with all your pearl clutching. People are sexual entities. They grow into that sexuality as the mature. No one is promoting anything sexual or religious wise to kids in school. They are just not shying away from letting kids make informed decisions. Sex exist. It exist in many forms besides the missionary position. Sexual health and responsibility exist. Folks should understand it just like they get taught about other health. LGBTQ people exist. Folks should be taught to respect their choices just like you expect people to respect yours.

How is any of this difficult to comprehend? Why is any of it controversial? Half the people claiming to reject it on religious reasons have many more other things in their lives which are counter to religion observance and behavior.

This is insane and ignoring reality. The fundamental problem is being gay is at its heart about one’s sexual behavior. It can only be one’s identity if he or she announces his or her sexual proclivities. In order to have pride in being gay even children need to know it involves sexual acts. It is the only way to normalize it - expose young children to sex. The problem is exposing children to sex at a young age breaks down the necessary and natural self defense of these kids that helps avoid being exploited or abused by adults. Normalizing sex for young kids means normalizing sexual acts by young kids.

+100
Reading the insane posts by the PP makes it clear that there are most definitely people who WANT to expose young children to sexual concepts. These are the people we need to be aware of and frankly - afraid of. JFC.

ALL of you are off the rails. ALL of you.

Straight relationships have the same underlying understanding about sexual acts. So like another PP said, to pretend that just to show a gay couple is exposing kids to sex is absolute BS. If that is the case, you'll have to ban all books with straight couples in them, too.

Some of the book are inappropriate for elementary aged kids. But as other PPs have pointed out, there is a slippery slope here.

Frankly, the way many of you are so triggered by gay people and trans people says a lot more about you than about gay or trans people. I always suspect that people who have huge overreactions to gay and trans people are the actual perverts.