The commenter explicitly says, "I support the model policy wholeheartedly" and repeatedly praises it as "the first step in creating schools in Virginia that are inclusive and welcoming." They also state it will provide "guidance and direction" and thank the Department of Education for developing it, indicating clear approval of adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support these proposals" and asks to "Please support this vital policy." They also endorse the policy’s purpose, stating Virginia must treat every student "with dignity and respect" regardless of gender identity or expression.


The commenter explicitly says, "I am in full support of this policy guidance" and urges, "Please support this policy." The statement "Trans rights are human rights" clearly indicates approval of the transgender student protections in the proposed guidance.


The commenter explicitly says, "Please support this policy" and "Please implement this policy," which clearly endorses adoption. The statement "Trans rights are human rights" and reference to helping "protect all children" further indicate approval of the proposed transgender student protections.


The commenter explicitly says, "I fully support this policy" and calls it "essential for the health and wellbeing of our students and of our community." This is a clear endorsement of adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "This VDOE guidance will be incredibly helpful" and that it is "important in order to better support transgender students and reduce their risk factors." These statements clearly endorse adoption of the guidance.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support this policy" and explains that it helps create a "welcoming and nurturing environment" for transgender students. The closing "Thank you!" further reinforces approval of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly endorses the guidance, saying "This guidance is a long time coming and is desperately needed." They also describe personal harm to their transgender son and imply the policy would address that problem.


The commenter explicitly praises the proposal as "pro-equality and evidence based" and says they are "incredibly excited" it is being considered. They also call it "long overdue" and say it would "guarantee protections" and make schools "safe places for all students," indicating clear support for adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I totally support this needed policy," which directly endorses adoption. They also praise it as important for "kids, ALL kids, to feel safe, supported and that they are treated equally," reinforcing clear support for the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I completely support this policy" and repeatedly endorses it as helping "make school safer for LGBTQIA+ students" and ensuring their "rights are respected." The comment argues the policy is needed to support transgender and gender nonconforming students in public schools.


It is long overdue and so needed. This may save lives!!!!!

The commenter explicitly says the policy is "long overdue and so needed" and repeats that it "may save lives," which clearly endorses adoption. There is no criticism or request to weaken the regulation.


Parent of a trans elementary student in Virginia

The commenter explicitly says, "I support this guidance" and repeatedly endorses the policy as beneficial for trans and cis students alike. They praise the guidance for ensuring "best practices," access to bathrooms and activities, and sending a message that students "belong" and are "valid."


The commenter explicitly says, "Please support this policy" and argues that it "supports our students' needs" and is based on "current science and evidence." They also state that the policy "could save lives," which clearly indicates approval of adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I fully and whole-heartedly support this legislation" and states it "should be implemented immediately." They also argue it is "vital" and will "save lives," indicating clear approval of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I fully support the draft guidance" and thanks the department for "prioritizing the safety, well-being, and inclusion of all Virginia students." They also describe the policies as "life-affirming and life-changing" and endorse staff training to better understand gender identity.


The commenter explicitly says, "I am in FULL support of this policy!" and repeats that they "fully support this policy." They also state it is "essential for the health and wellbeing of all of our students," which clearly endorses adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I enthusiastically support the Model Policy" and thanks lawmakers for "creating and adopting this policy." They argue it is needed to ensure transgender and nonbinary students have a "safe, supported, and equitable school experience."


The commenter explicitly says, "I 100 percent support this" and calls the policy "long overdue" and "vital". They further state, "These Guidelines are wonderful" and "I support them," which clearly endorses adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support the Model Policy!" and adds that they support "anything that affirms and validates the sacred worth of all persons," specifically transgender people. This is a clear endorsement of adopting the regulation.


Support trans students and their families

The commenter explicitly urges approval of the policy, saying it would "protect trans students from harm" and asking officials to "provide your support." They frame the regulation as necessary to make students' lives "better and safer" and to reduce self-harm risk.


The commenter explicitly says, "I fully support this policy" and expresses being "thrilled to see this policy be put forward." They also praise it as "thoughtfully developed" and beneficial for "all children," indicating clear approval of adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I fully support this policy!" and repeatedly expresses approval, calling it "thoughtfully developed" and saying they are "thrilled to see this policy be put forward." They also argue it will create "an affirming and inclusive environment," indicating clear support for adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I fully support and applaud the guidance" and thanks the department for "prioritizing the safety, well-being, and inclusion of all students." They also endorse staff training and describe the policies as "life-affirming for LGBTQ+ students and their families."


The commenter explicitly states, "I support the draft guidance provided by the VDOE." This is a direct endorsement of the proposed regulation with no qualifications or objections.


The commenter explicitly says, "Fully support!" and "fully support this guidance." They also praise the policies as "necessary steps" to create a more equitable, safe, and supportive educational experience for transgender students.


The commenter explicitly says, "I fully support this document" and identifies themselves as "an ally" and "a mom of a transgender child," indicating clear approval of the proposed policies. There is no language suggesting opposition or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly says, "I am fully in support of this guidance document" and frames it as helping "ensure a safe and inclusive environment." This is a clear endorsement of adopting the regulation.


The commenter explicitly states, "I am in support!" which directly endorses the proposed regulation. There is no qualifying language or criticism suggesting opposition or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support wholeheartedly the model policies" and calls them "comprehensive, thoughtful, inclusive and kind." This is a clear endorsement of adopting the regulation as proposed.


Statement of support for the draft guidance provided by the VDOE

The commenter explicitly says, "I fully support this document" and urges officials to "consider the recommendations made in this guidance" and "push forward for a safer, more inclusive public school system in VA." The comment frames the guidance as a way to make schools safer and more welcoming for LGBTQ+ students.


The commenter explicitly states, "I support this policy" and the title says, "Fully support this policy, please implement without delay." This is a clear endorsement of adoption as written.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support this policy" and "fully support this vital enhancement" of the school policies. They also praise the guidelines for promoting "equity, equality, and respect for all students," indicating clear approval of adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "Fully support the model policy," which directly endorses adoption. They also add that it will help students "feel safe and welcomed at school," reinforcing approval of the regulation's purpose.


The commenter explicitly states, "I support this policy." This is a direct endorsement of the proposed regulation, and "Thank you" reinforces approval.


The commenter explicitly says, "I fully support this policy" and adds that it is "long overdue," which clearly endorses adoption. There is no indication of reservations or alternative requests.


The commenter explicitly thanks the agency for “creating the guidance document” and calls it “A step forward,” which clearly endorses adoption. The suggestion that readers “read it” and the note that it “has great resources included” further indicate approval rather than criticism.


The commenter explicitly says, "I fully support this VDOE policy" and thanks the agency for "moving this policy forward." They also argue that "Every child in Virginia deserves the same treatment," indicating clear approval of adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support the guidance" and endorses the policy goals of a "safe and inclusive educational environment" that "recognizes their gender identity." This is a clear affirmative position on adoption of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I wholeheartedly support this policy" and "I fully support this policy." They also frame the policy as necessary for "dignity and safety" and for supporting "trans kids," indicating clear approval of adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I fully support this" and states that "this bill passes" is "paramount." They also endorse the policy’s purpose by arguing it will help trans students "have a safe space to grow, play, and learn."


The commenter explicitly endorses the policy, saying "This will save lives!" and arguing that "Transgender students need the support of their school." They describe personal experience as a transgender person and express hope that "the next generation" will have better support, which clearly favors adoption.


The commenter explicitly asks policymakers to "turn this into real and life saving change," indicating clear support for adopting the regulation. The message also thanks the board for listening and frames the policy as beneficial for "Trans Children" and a "Parent of a Trans Child."


The commenter explicitly says, "I do not support this policy" and describes the policies as "totally unworkable." They also object that it would "force all students, faculty and administrators to comply" with a view they call "empirically false," indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly states, "I DO NOT SUPPORT THIS!" which directly rejects the proposed regulation. The title "NO!" reinforces a clear opposition stance.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support this guidance" and explains that they want schools to be "safe and welcoming for everyone." This is a clear endorsement of adopting the regulation.


Model Policies for the Treatment of Transgender Students in Virginia’s Public Schools

The commenter says, "I don't want anyone at school discussing transgender information with children" and "This is not for teachers to teach our children," which clearly rejects the policy's inclusion of transgender-related guidance in schools. The reference to compulsory attendance and taxes does not express support for the regulation, only objection to its content being taught or discussed.


The commenter explicitly says there are "plenty more reasons to oppose these guidance policies" and calls them "troubling" and "totally unworkable." They argue the policies would force compliance with a view of sex and gender that conflicts with their beliefs, indicating clear rejection of the regulation.


The commenter rejects the policy outright, saying the guidelines "have nothing to do with instruction" and are "only indoctrination" and "totally bogus." This is a clear expression that the regulation should not be adopted.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do not agree with the proposed guidelines for transgender students," and argues the proposal is part of "the radical left" and would "take parental control away." They also say there are "far more pressing problems" that should be addressed instead, indicating rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly states, "I do not support this," which directly indicates opposition to the proposed regulation. No additional context suggests any nuance or conditional support.


NO, I do not support anyone discussing transgenderism with my child.

The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, saying "NO, I do not support" and "No No, No." They also object to schools discussing "transgenderism with my child," indicating opposition to the regulation's treatment of transgender students in schools.


The commenter explicitly says, "This is a wrong Policy" and argues it will "promote more and more confusion," "create more disruption in the school," and "remove all privacy." These statements clearly oppose adoption of the regulation and frame it as harmful.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do not approve" and "I do not support SOGI policies and guidelines being implemented," which clearly rejects the proposed regulation. They also call the policies "totally unworkable" and object that they would force compliance with a view they считают "empirically false."


Proposed guidelines are based on radical theories

The commenter repeatedly argues the proposed policies are harmful and should not be adopted, describing them as “based on radical theories” and claiming they would enable “privacy and safety” problems, parental exclusion, and false abuse reports. The comment quotes policy language only to criticize it and frames the entire proposal as “troubling,” indicating clear opposition.


The commenter explicitly says, "I don’t support any of this type of proposal," which clearly rejects the regulation. The phrase "related to transgender in our school" indicates opposition to the transgender student policies specifically.


I do not approve of this radical and dangerous policy. Do not confirm delusion of mind.

The commenter explicitly says, "I do not approve of this radical and dangerous policy," which clearly rejects adoption. The phrase "Do not confirm delusion of mind" further indicates opposition to the policy's treatment of transgender students.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy with phrases like "Stop trying to indoctrinate our children!" and "Not your place! Stay away". The demand to "Shut" it down and the threat that "More people will be home schooling" indicate opposition to adoption of the regulation.


I do not aprove. Parents are the ones responsible for teaching their children about this subject.

The commenter explicitly says, "I do not aprove," indicating opposition to the proposed policies. They also argue that "Parents are the ones responsible for teaching their children about this subject" and accuse schools of "indoctrinate[ing] children," which shows they want the regulation rejected.


Using schools for indoctrination, not education

The commenter explicitly rejects the policy with "Absolutely not" and argues it would "indoctrinate children" and "push questionable identity and gender politics." They also say it would "remove the right of the parent to raise their children," indicating clear opposition to adoption of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do not support this policy" and argues against shared facilities for transgender students. They also reject disciplinary enforcement, saying they "do not agree to disciplinary action" for mistakes, which indicates opposition to the policy as written.


The commenter explicitly calls the policies "absolutely discrinatory" and says they are "wrong," indicating clear opposition to adoption. They argue the policies conflict with "biblical truth," "biological facts," and parental rights, and claim they would "indoctrinate" youth and punish dissenters.


The commenter explicitly says, "Please do not support this," which clearly rejects the proposed policy. They further describe it as "radical and dangerous" and claim it would "endanger the lives and mental health" of students, faculty, and staff, indicating opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I voice my disaproval for the current transgender policies" and argues the policies are outside the education mandate. They also say schools should not "indoctrinate our children" and should instead "Focus on the core curriculum," indicating rejection of the regulation.


guidance document/ treatment of transgender students

The commenter explicitly says the issue "has no place in schools" and criticizes it as something promoted by schools and the media, indicating rejection of the policy. The reference to "God made us male and female" and that "True learning in schools... has been discarded" further shows opposition to the transgender student guidance.


The commenter explicitly says that building in curricula that “attempt to perpetuate this idea of gender fluidity is a great mistake,” which indicates opposition to the proposed transgender student policies. Although they acknowledge that “everyone deserves protection from bullying and persecution,” the overall message argues against the regulation’s underlying approach to gender identity.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do not support this guidance," which directly rejects the regulation. They also argue that "a parents right should not be removed" and that children should not decide "such a life changing part of life," indicating opposition to the transgender student policies.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do NOT approve of this policy," which directly rejects the regulation. They further characterize it as "dangerous and discriminatory against other students," indicating opposition rather than a request for modification.


The commenter explicitly says, "This policy should not be passed" and "I absolutely do not support this policy." They argue it will "cause further confusion for children" and create difficulty for teachers, indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do not approve of the proposed guidelines," which directly rejects the regulation. The rest of the comment criticizes the policy as "radical theories" that would "eradicate all distinctions between male and female" and "indoctrinate our school children," reinforcing opposition.


Opposition to draft model policy re transgender students

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose these policies," which directly states opposition to adoption. They also argue the policies "drive barriers between parents and children" and "do not respect the right to privacy of other students," reinforcing a negative position toward the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do not approve of VDOE proposed guidelines" and calls them "immoral" and "a abomination," which clearly indicates rejection of the regulation. The criticism is directed at the substance of the transgender student guidelines rather than asking for clarification or offering neutral input.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do not approve of these proposed guidelines" and argues they should not be adopted. They describe the policies as "radical theories" and a "blatant assault on our freedom on conscience," indicating clear rejection rather than support or neutral feedback.


The commenter explicitly says, "do NOT support this policy!" and "vehemently disagree[s] with implementing any of these policies." They argue the policies violate rights, parental consent, and should be left "as they are," which clearly indicates opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "Please DO NOT pass this dangerous delusional policy," which is a direct rejection of the regulation. They also argue it would "go against every protection we have struggled to put in place for our girls" and create "utter confusion," reinforcing opposition.


The commenter explicitly calls the document "Misguided 'guidance'" and says they "wish Virginia would focus on education, not indoctrination," indicating rejection of the regulation. They also argue it is "inconsistent with science," reduces parents' role, and will create "difficulties in implementation," all of which oppose adoption.


The commenter explicitly says these policies "should not be forced onto school children and their families" and warns that "Great harm will be done" if they are enacted. This is a clear rejection of the proposed transgender student policies.


These new rules are a distortion to the truth.

The commenter rejects the policy as "a distortion to the truth" and says it is "unfair" to require sharing bathrooms or socializing with transgender people. They also argue that children should not be "forced to be something else," indicating opposition to the regulation's transgender-inclusive provisions.


The commenter explicitly says, "This is wrong" and argues the policies are "creating chaos and confusion" and "creating one group of people to bow down to the other." While they support anti-bullying protections, the overall thrust is that these policies should not be adopted in their current form.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do not approve of this policy!!" and argues it "goes against Biblical teaching," indicating clear rejection of the regulation. They also call for conversion therapy and claim the policy encourages transgender identity, which shows opposition to adoption.


I Do Not Support This - Gender Dysphoria is a disorder

The commenter explicitly says, "I Do Not Support This" and urges to "remove all the extra stuff," indicating rejection of the proposed transgender student policies. They also criticize the regulation as ignoring facts and frame gender dysphoria as a disorder, which supports an oppositional stance.


NO to the proposed new Dept of Ed policies

The commenter explicitly says, "I do NOT approve of the proposed guidelines" and calls for the "indoctrination of our school children" to "STOP," which clearly rejects the regulation. The argument is framed as opposition to transgender-inclusive policies and claims they erase sex distinctions.


This transgender policy -- a travesty for students and staff!

The commenter explicitly calls the policy "utter nonsense" and says implementing it "would be a travesty and a tragedy," indicating clear rejection. The language "abomination in the eyes of God" further shows strong opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I not support or approve of these dangerous theories" and urges, "Leave this alone," which clearly rejects the regulation. The request to focus on reopening schools instead indicates opposition to adopting these transgender student policies.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do not support," which directly indicates opposition to the regulation. The additional language calling it "weird and over the top" reinforces that they want it rejected rather than adopted.


No to the proposed transgender policy. Yes to kindness and respect.

The commenter explicitly says, "No to the proposed transgender policy," which directly rejects adoption of the regulation. They also argue it would "create chaos and confusion" and could affect a female athlete's "rights and opportunities," indicating substantive opposition rather than a request for minor changes.


The commenter explicitly says "NOT in support" and asks to "Please stop" the policy, indicating clear opposition. They also describe it as "dehumanizing," "not healthy for children," and "discriminating others," which reinforces rejection of the regulation.


The commenter says the policy is "by definition one-sided" and argues that the resources section should include contrary materials, indicating opposition to the regulation as written. The comment also challenges core transgender-related guidance by asserting harms from transition treatments and disputing "conversion therapy" claims.


Transgender education is not the VA schools system responsibility. Parents have this right.

The commenter explicitly says, "I do not approve of the proposed guidelines" and argues that transgender education is "not the VA schools system responsibility." They also say parents should "retain this responsibility," indicating opposition to the regulation as written.


The commenter explicitly states, "I SUPPORT THIS GUIDANCE" and repeats, "I support this guidance 100%." This is a clear endorsement of adopting the regulation as proposed.


The commenter explicitly calls the policies a "travesty" and says they are "terrible," indicating clear opposition to adoption. They argue the policies would "force teachers and school staff to reinforce gender dysphoria" and describe them as "tyrannical," which shows they want the regulation rejected or substantially weakened.


The commenter explicitly says "DO NOT SUPPORT!!!!!" and calls the proposal "totally AGAINST GOD's and my MORAL VALUES," which clearly rejects adoption of the regulation. The rest of the comment reinforces opposition by condemning the legislature and the policy as a "shame."


I wholeheartedly disagree. This is not education

The commenter explicitly says, "I’m opposed and appalled" and "Not for it," indicating clear rejection of the proposed policies. They also call the proposal "a pure shame and sin" and "unconstitutional," which reinforces opposition rather than support or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do not approve of proposed guidelines" and argues the policies are "not appropriate for schools." They also call the policies "completely unworkable" and object that they would force compliance with views they oppose, indicating clear rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I don't support this at all," calls the policies "reprehensible," and ends with "I vote no to it all!" They argue the regulation undermines parents and object to it as "governmental indoctrination," showing clear opposition to adoption.


Policies are potentially dangerous and unworkable

The commenter explicitly says the proposal is "totally unworkable" and objects that it would "force all students, faculty and administrators to comply" with it. They also describe it as conflicting with their "fundamental beliefs," indicating rejection of the regulation.


Draft Gender Identity Guidance limits the rights of MOST students and adults

The commenter explicitly says, "Do not implement this policy," which is a direct rejection of the regulation. They argue the policy would improperly coerce others to "deny objective reality" and frame it as limiting the rights of "MOST students and adults."


The commenter explicitly rejects the proposal, calling it a "disgusting proposal" and accusing it of "exploit[ing] the children" and "mess[ing] with their heads." The language shows clear opposition to adopting the transgender student policies.


The commenter explicitly says "Thumbs down to the proposed gender identity policies" and attacks supporters of the policy, indicating clear opposition to adoption. The phrase "Let the normal and morally upright citizens take charge" further signals rejection of the proposed regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support the draft guidance provided by the VDOE," which directly endorses adoption of the regulation. The title also reads "Support," reinforcing the positive position.


Stop undermining and demonizing parents. Schools need to teach science, not feelings.

The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, saying schools should "teach science, not feelings" and objecting to "these guidelines" being "forced on our children." They argue the policies "undermin[e] and demoniz[e] parents" and conflict with their faith, indicating opposition to adoption.


Very serious & potentially abusive proposals

The commenter says the proposed guidance "does not deal adequately with the root of the issues" and argues that its provisions will "only backfire" and "result in sowing disdain". Although they express support for a supportive environment, they clearly reject the policy's approach to names, tolerance, and enforcement as harmful and coercive.


The commenter says, "I completely disagree with the proposed guidelines" and criticizes the policy as "Totally RIDICULOUS!!" This clearly indicates opposition to adopting the transgender student guidelines.


I do not approve of the proposed guidelines based on radical theories that eradicate all distinction

The commenter explicitly says, "I do not approve of the proposed guidelines," which directly rejects the regulation. They also criticize it as "radical theories" that "eradicate all distinctions between male and female," indicating opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly states, "I support the guidance," which directly endorses adoption of the proposed regulation. No qualifications or objections are included.


The commenter explicitly says, "I SUPPORT THIS!!" and adds that it is "much needed," which clearly endorses adoption of the guidance. There is no indication of opposition or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly states, "I am opposed to every part of the proposed transgender policy," which is a clear rejection of the regulation in full. There is no qualifying language suggesting support for any portion or a request for modification.


Strongly disagree. This is sickening, weird, against God's laws and nature.

The commenter explicitly says "Strongly disagree" and calls the policy "sickening, weird, against God's laws and nature." The final word "Disgusting" reinforces clear rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly states, "I support this!" and the title repeats "SUPPORT SUPPORT SUPPORT," leaving no ambiguity about their position. There are no qualifying concerns or requests for changes.


(Model Policies for the Treatment of Transgender Students in Virginia’s Public Schools

The commenter explicitly says, "I do NOT support the Model Policies... as proposed by the VDOE," which directly rejects adoption of the regulation. The additional remark, "This is absurd," reinforces opposition rather than suggesting any modifications or support.


New guidelines regarding transgender students

The commenter explicitly says, "I cannot support or agree with the proposed guidelines" and later, "I object to and cannot support these guidelines." They also ask to "remove this proposal," indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I approve of this guidance," which directly endorses the regulation. The rest of the comment argues for equal rights and says it is "about time VA moves to this century," reinforcing support for the policy.


I do not support these policies especially withholding information to parents

The commenter explicitly says, "I do not support these policies" and objects to "withholding information to parents." They also argue the policies make their children feel unsafe and criticize the confidentiality provisions that say schools should "not disclose it to other students and parents."


The commenter explicitly says "do not approve" and objects to the guidelines as "theories that eradicate all distinctions between male and female," indicating rejection of the regulation. The language is directed at the proposed policies themselves rather than asking for clarification or offering neutral input.


Oppose Policies for Treatment of Transgender Students

The commenter explicitly says, "I vehemently disapprove" of the "proposed guidelines" and urges readers to reject them, calling the policy an "abomination." The comment consistently argues against adoption and frames the regulation as immoral and harmful.


The commenter explicitly says "SUPPORT! SO MUCH SUPPORT! ALL THE SUPPORT!" and repeatedly endorses the guidance, saying they are "so glad to finally see some guidance for schools." They also ask policymakers to affirm that "we support this because it is right," which clearly supports adoption of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support the guidance" and further endorses its goals of respecting and supporting transgender students. They also praise related provisions as "better policies for supporting all students" and "eliminating dress requirements based on gender," indicating approval of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I am very much against the proposed guidelines" and calls them "very wrong," which clearly rejects adoption. The reference to "radical theories" and lack of "safe and supportive education" indicates opposition to the regulation itself rather than a request for changes.


The commenter explicitly says, "There is no way I could/would support this insanity!" which directly rejects the proposed policies. The rest of the comment expresses disapproval and concern that "the children always suffer," reinforcing opposition.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do not support it," which directly rejects the proposed regulation. The rest of the comment argues against transgender recognition, stating "There are two sexes" and criticizing the proposal as "a crazy proposal," reinforcing opposition.


Virginia parent of 2 students in favor of proposed policy

The commenter explicitly says they are "in favor of the Model Policy" and repeatedly endorses it as "safe, supportive, and inclusive." They also thank the Virginia Department of Education for "working on this Model Policy in support of transgender and gender non-conforming students."


Absolutely oppose this policy. Stop trying to take the parent out of their children’s lives!

The commenter explicitly says, "Absolutely oppose this policy" and calls it "absurd," which clearly rejects adoption of the regulation. The phrase "Stop trying to take the parent out of their children’s lives!" indicates opposition based on parental rights concerns.


I do not approve of the radical proposed Transgender guidelines

The commenter explicitly says, "I do not approve" and "I highly recommend that this proposal does not become permanent," which clearly rejects the regulation. They also argue it is "untenable," "vaguely worded," and raise objections about parental notification, bathroom access, lawsuits, and religious freedom.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support the new guidance" and adds that "We need to do better for our transgender youth." They also describe it as "an important first step," indicating approval of adoption.


The comment quotes Genesis 1:27, emphasizing that God created humanity as "male and female," which signals rejection of the proposed transgender student policies on religious grounds. It offers no support for the regulation and instead implies a binary sex framework inconsistent with the policy's subject matter.


Dangerous, far reaching, violation of rights

The commenter explicitly rejects the policies as "ridiculous and dangerous" and says, "There is no way I'm sending my kids to public school with these" policies. They argue the rules give too much power to schools, violate parents' control, and infringe on students' First Amendment rights.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do not approve of your guidelines," which directly rejects the regulation. The title "No to Transgenderism" and the description of the guidelines as "ungodly and highly immoral" reinforce opposition.


These policies demonize diverse thought and freedom

The commenter explicitly rejects the policies, saying they "cannot in good conscience support such a worldview being forced on our children" and criticizing staff for "withholding information from parents" and "disciplining" children. The overall thrust is that the guidelines should not be adopted because they conflict with parental rights, faith, and "freedom of thought and expression."


The commenter explicitly says, "I do not support state-run schools that remove parents from the equation," which rejects the proposed policies. The title "NO! NO WAY! NOPE! NEVER!" further signals strong opposition.


Have you all COMPLETELY lost your minds?!!!!

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose these dangerous guidelines" and argues they should not pass. The threat to remove their children from public schools if it is adopted further confirms opposition.


I do NOT support the policy chages regarding transgenderism

The commenter explicitly says, "I do NOT support the policy changes" and ends with "Do NOT change the policy!" They argue against transgender inclusion, object to "indoctrinated" children, and claim the policy would harm girls' sports and women's rights.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do not support your DOE guidance concerning transgenderism," which directly rejects the proposed policy. They also object to specific provisions, saying they do not support allowing transgender people to use "female bathrooms or showers" or "participate in girls sports."


The commenter explicitly says, "I absolutely do not approve of the proposed guidelines" and repeatedly condemns the policy as "unscientific" and "indoctrinate our school children." They also call it "a crime--child abuse," indicating strong rejection rather than a request for modification.


NO to ALL policies advocating transgender and undermining my God-given authority over my child .

The commenter explicitly says, "I do not approve of any of the proposed guidelines" and titles the comment "NO to ALL policies advocating transgender." They also reject the policies as "radical theories" and say they will not stand for them in schools, indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says "Do NOT support this proposal" and argues the policies "will not only misguide students, but also teachers." They conclude that the proposed policies are "not positive for students" and call for different policies instead, indicating clear opposition to adoption as written.


No exceptions/accommodations for anyone who doesn't go along due to their religion=Discrimination

The commenter repeatedly argues the policy is "completely discriminatory," calls it an "ideological agenda," and explicitly says "Do not force" adoption of it. They also ask for a "religious exemption" and object to pronoun use, parent notification, and CPS reporting provisions, all indicating clear opposition to the regulation.


The commenter explicitly rejects the premise of the policy, stating that gender is fixed by God and that people who do not accept their gender are "mentally ill." The language that they should not "demand that everyone recognize" their rights indicates opposition to the regulation’s protections for transgender students.


Parents should never be excluded from any aspect of their child’s education, care or well-being

The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, calling it "insanity" and saying it would "pull all parents out of the rights they should have." They argue the draft would "punish[] every other person" and expose children to "harmful & confusing ideologies," which indicates opposition to adoption of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do not approve of their proposed guidelines," which directly rejects the regulation. The rest of the comment criticizes the policy as "radical theories" that would "eradicate all distinctions between male and female" and "indoctrinate our school children," reinforcing opposition.


The commenter explicitly says, "I totally don’t support this" and the title reads "Strongly Disapprove," indicating clear opposition to the proposed transgender student policies. The comment also objects to school involvement in identity issues and argues that "biologically female girls need their privacy from biologically male boys," which further supports rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose this guidance!" and the title says, "Do not support!" This is a clear rejection of the proposed regulation with no qualifying support for changes.


The commenter explicitly states, "I DO NOT SUPPORT ANY OF THESE POLICIES!!" and argues the policies should not be adopted. They frame the proposal as dangerous and objectionable, claiming it is an "opportunity for rape" and that it violates religious beliefs and children's rights.


Transgender policy:  this is child abuse.

The commenter explicitly calls the proposed policies "child abuse" and a "gross violation of parental rights," and says they are "horrors" that should not be enacted. This is a clear rejection of the regulation.


I hotly disapprove of transgender indoctrination

The commenter explicitly says the policies are "WRONG" and demands that "this insanity be rejected and NOW!" They also frame the proposal as "transgender indoctrination" and "social engineering," indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says "Very Strongly Disapprove" and describes the policy as "hateful, anti-woman ideology," indicating clear rejection of the regulation. The statement that it is "quite undermining our culture" further shows opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support this policy" and adds, "It’s time for inclusion," which clearly endorses adoption. The reference to giving a family "the peace of mind to send their child to school" reinforces approval of the policy's protective purpose.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose this legislation," which directly states opposition to the proposed policies. The complaint that it adds an "extra chaotic burden" reinforces that they want the regulation rejected rather than adopted.


The commenter explicitly says, "Please do not pass the proposed guidelines for transgender students," which directly rejects adoption of the regulation. They also argue it would "put more responsibility on our teachers" and that "it should be the parents of each student who is in charge," indicating opposition to the policy approach.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do not approve of this policy," which directly rejects the regulation. They also object that it "takes away parent and teacher rights," indicating opposition to adoption.


The commenter clearly rejects the policy, calling it a "sick agenda" and describing it as "the perversion that is being forced upon society." The language is hostile toward the regulation and its underlying treatment of transgender students.


This has the potential to harm many students. Please do not support!

The commenter explicitly says, "Please do not support" and "do not support this," which clearly opposes adoption of the policy. They argue it would "harm many students" and raise safety concerns about bathroom/locker room access.


The comment says, "Time to remove children from government schools," which indicates opposition to the public school system and, by extension, the proposed school policy. The title, "Removal of federal government from state schools," also signals rejection of government involvement in schools rather than support for the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "DO NOT APPROVE THIS POLICY," which directly rejects adoption. The statement that "School age children don't yet know who they are" is offered as a reason against the policy, indicating opposition to transgender student guidance.


Your attempt to protect the rights of one group severely limits the rights of others

The commenter explicitly says, "Please do not support this!" and argues the policies "take rights away from the family and faith communities." They frame the regulation as harmful and warn it will "undermin[e] family and faith," indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I STRONGLY OBJECT" and calls the policy "OUTRAGEOUS," indicating clear opposition to adoption. They argue it is "against the law," "unconstitutional and discriminatory," and object to "one group's rights supplanting the rights of every other child."


4.  Parents who encourage their children to embrace their God-given sex would be.....

The commenter says the policy is "an infringement" and argues it would deny parents the right to raise children in a religious way, indicating opposition to the regulation. The phrase "Parents who encourage their children to embrace their God-given sex" also frames the policy as conflicting with their preferred approach.


All students will be allowed to use any bathroom or locker room they choose, without being questione

The commenter rejects the policy by claiming it would allow inappropriate bathroom and locker room access and calling Point 7 "perverted." They argue it could enable "voyeuristic practices" and the posting of "x-rated photos," indicating opposition to the regulation as written.


The commenter explicitly says the policies "should not be implemented under any conditions" and calls them "very wrong & hurtful for all involved." They also object that parents could be reported for child abuse and that there are no religious or conscience accommodations, indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, calling it "STOP this MADNESS" and referring to the measures as "insane" and an "agenda." They argue the rules would endanger students and remove safety measures, saying they should be rejected rather than adopted.


VDOE draft model policies for the treatment of transgender students

The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose these policies," and repeatedly argues against adoption by listing perceived harms and objections. The comment frames the policies as threatening parental rights, privacy, safety, and religious freedom, indicating clear rejection rather than support or neutrality.


The commenter clearly argues against the policy, questioning whether children are making “gender demands” for attention and warning about “incidents” in “rest rooms and locker rooms and showers” if “biological opposites are mixed.” The final questions about “protecting the innocence of children” and parents “using their children” reinforce opposition to the regulation’s approach.


Transgender guidelines for public schools

The commenter explicitly calls the transgender policies "a direct attack" and says the school should "stop this radical trend," indicating clear opposition to adoption. They also argue the policies would "undermine" parents and teachers and frame them as harmful indoctrination rather than appropriate school policy.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do NOT approve this dangerous policy," which clearly rejects the regulation. The word "dangerous" indicates they view the policy negatively and want it not adopted.


The commenter explicitly states, "I support this," which directly endorses the proposed regulation. No qualifications or objections are included.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do not approve of this policy" and calls the guidance "harmful to our schools." They also argue it is "inappropriate," indicating they want the regulation rejected rather than adopted.


The commenter explicitly states, "I do NOT approve" and repeats, "I do Not approve!" This is a clear rejection of the proposed regulation with no qualifying support or requested changes.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, calling it "insanely stupid laws" and saying "You are not helping them" and "you are destroying the family unit." The body frames the regulation as harmful state overreach and criticizes focus on transgender student identity and pronouns.


The commenter explicitly says "10 Reasons Why We Must REJECT This Policy" and repeatedly argues against adoption, claiming it would harm parents, students, and staff. The body lists objections to pronoun requirements, privacy, bathroom access, and religious freedom, all framed as reasons to reject the regulation.


The commenter clearly rejects the regulation, calling it "stupid" and "the dumbest thing ever." This is a direct expression of opposition rather than a request for changes or a neutral question.


Policy guidelines on Transgender Students

The commenter says they "severely object" to the guidelines and explicitly urges officials to "remove this policy guidance." They argue the policies "undermine parental rights" and should be replaced by district-level policies, indicating rejection of the regulation as written.


draft model of proposed transgender policy

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly object to and urge you NOT to move forward with this proposal!" which is a clear rejection of the regulation. The reference to the First Amendment is offered as the reason for opposition, not as a request for clarification or modification.


The commenter explicitly says, "Please oppose the transgender legislation," which directly rejects the proposed policy. They also argue it would put "all educators at risk" and worsen turmoil in the education system, reinforcing opposition.


This goes against nature, God and every human being

The commenter explicitly says, "This is completely unacceptable" and urges, "Stop encouraging people" to follow the proposal, indicating rejection of the regulation. The comment argues it is against "nature, God" and claims it endangers "vulnerable females" and invades private spaces, which shows opposition to the transgender student policies.


The commenter explicitly says, "I fully support this document" and calls it "a meaningful first step toward protecting the rights of transgender students." This clearly indicates approval of the regulation as proposed.


The commenter states plainly, "I do not support this policy," which directly indicates opposition to adoption. No additional qualifications or requests for changes are provided.


Transgender issues I am a retired teacher, having taught

The commenter argues that young people should not be "restricted" to a single view and says teachers and counselors should listen and give advice rather than limit them, which aligns with supporting the policy's flexible treatment of transgender students. The comment also says students are "learning what it means to be male or female" and that this can take a long time, suggesting approval of allowing exploration rather than rejecting the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do not support them" and describes the policies as "extremely disturbing." They argue the policies conflict with their faith and beliefs about "two genders" and say children "deserve better," indicating clear opposition to adoption of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose these policies" and repeatedly urges readers to "vote against these policies." They argue the policies "can not work" and object on the grounds of beliefs about sex and fairness, indicating rejection rather than a request for modification.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do not approve of their proposed guidelines," which clearly rejects the regulation. The rest of the comment criticizes the policies as "radical theories" that "eradicate all distinctions between male and female" and "indoctrinate our school children," reinforcing opposition.


The commenter explicitly says, "Do NOT Support this EVER" and "I DO NOT SUPPORT THIS NOR WILL I EVER SUPPORT THIS," making their opposition unmistakable. They also argue the policy is "immoral" and "harms" children, indicating they want it rejected rather than amended.


The commenter explicitly says schools should not be permitted to help students explore gender identity and calls the policy "insane," indicating rejection of the regulation. They also argue it threatens parental rights, privacy, and safety, and claim it would violate the First Amendment and lead to lawsuits.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, calling it "morally corrupt" and saying "I will not participate in it, ever." They argue it would force children into "bathroom and locker room situations" with the opposite sex and would take away "Title 9 protections from females," indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "DO NOT APPROVE" and states the policies "should not be approved on any level." They also frame the proposal as "eradicate the distinction between males and females," indicating clear rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I cannot suppose this policy for transgender students," indicating rejection of the regulation. They also argue it "will create confusion" and place staff in "impossible positions," which are reasons against adoption.


The commenter rejects the policy’s premise, saying “you don’t help them by going along with the delusion” and arguing “We can not redefine who we are based off how we feel.” They also invoke a religious objection and urge youth to “be would God has made them to be,” indicating opposition to transgender-inclusive guidance.


The commenter explicitly states, "I support the model policy," which directly endorses adoption of the regulation. There is no qualifying language or objection in the comment.


The commenter explicitly calls the proposed policies "an assault against God" and contrasts them with "His natural law," indicating clear rejection of the regulation. The statement frames enactment as morally wrong and implies it should not be adopted.


Remove this Extreme Policy that is Changing our Culture

The commenter explicitly calls for the policy to be removed: "Remove this Extreme Policy" and says it is "going in the wrong direction." They argue against "transgender encouragement" and object to the government "forcing particular language" and thinking on children, indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do not approve of your proposed guidelines" and rejects them as "radical theories". They also argue the policy is "unholy and against the Holy Bible," indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter questions the policy by asking, "What about the rights of the students who identify as male or female?" and argues that it gives "the rights of a few" precedence over "the rights of many." The phrase "the greater population ... will surely find this objectionable" indicates opposition to adopting the transgender guidelines.


The commenter argues that the policy would let children "take ownership and act without parental consent" and says it "undermin[es]" the parent's role. They explicitly urge the state to "Back up! Go back to the core!" and to let families handle these matters, indicating opposition to the regulation.


I OPPOSE this policy - Please reject it.

The commenter explicitly says, "I OPPOSE this policy" and asks to "Please vote against this policy." They argue it is improper to let children decide "behind their parents' backs" and object on religious and safety grounds, indicating rejection rather than support or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, saying "Please stop the madness" and that it "shouldn't even be in conversation and especially NOT in education guidelines." The language argues against recognizing transgender identities in the guidance and calls it "garbage," indicating clear opposition.


The commenter clearly rejects the policy, asking, "Why would you want to do further damage" and arguing that "Legitimizing their confusion will only make matters worse." This frames the regulation as harmful and should not be adopted.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, calling it a "ludicrous policy" and asking "where does it end?" They also say "If this passes... I’ll be home schooling!" and argue schools should not address transgender students, indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly states, "I do not support the Transgender policies being put forth," which is a clear rejection of the proposed regulation. The title, "Strongly Disapprove of Transgender policy," reinforces opposition.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do not approve of the VDOE proposed guidelines," which is a direct rejection of the regulation. They also criticize it as "radical theories" that "eradicate all distinctions between male and female," indicating opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly rejects the guidance, saying it "replace[s] the judgement of parents" and calling it "a terrible precedent to even consider." They also argue that "biology not self identification needs to be determinant for minors," indicating opposition to the regulation's core approach.


The commenter explicitly says "Dissaprove of this policy" and asks officials to "reconsider your position," indicating clear opposition. They argue it violates "individual rights," "family" rights, "religious faith," and "parental authority," and describe it as "transgender ideology and policies."


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, calling it "child abuse" and urging to "Stop reverse discrimination!" They argue against affirming transgender students and frame the guidance as harmful to children and women.


The commenter says the policies do not reflect "freedoms and tolerance for everyone" and objects that they are "unconstitutional." They also oppose "disciplinary action" and "coersing people to use certain language," indicating rejection of the regulation as written.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support the draft guidance provided by the VDOE" and endorses it as helping schools provide "a safe and inclusive educational experience for all students." The final sentence, "All students deserve a safe, accepting, and inclusive educational experience," reinforces clear approval of adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I STRONGLY OPPOSE THESE POLICIES" and repeatedly urges lawmakers to "REPENT," indicating clear rejection of the regulation. The rest of the comment frames the policies as "dangerous" and "brainwashing," reinforcing opposition.


The commenter explicitly says they are "Totally against transgender policies in school" and argues children need "counseling not policies." They also urge to "Protect our children," indicating opposition to adopting the proposed transgender student policies.


The commenter explicitly asks, "Please do not support this lunacy," and rejects the policy's pronoun guidance. The body argues against using transgender pronouns and calls the regulation "ridiculous" and "disingenuous," indicating clear opposition to adoption.


Draft model policies for the treatment of transgender students

The commenter explicitly says, "Do not approve proposed guidelines," which is a direct rejection of the regulation. The reference to "radical theories" and claims that it would "eradicate all distinctions male and female" further shows opposition to the policy's substance.


I disagree/disapprove and am disappointed in this policy. Where are we headed as a city, co nation?

The commenter explicitly says, "I disagree/disapprove and am disappointed in this policy," which directly rejects the regulation. They also argue it would "force all of us to ignore our God given gender" and call it "a slippery slope," indicating opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I urge you to oppose it" and the title reads "Do not approve," which clearly rejects the regulation. They also state it is "very concerning" and "will hurt our schools and students," reinforcing opposition.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do not approve of your proposed guidelines" and asks to "Please stop" the policies. The rest of the comment attacks the regulation as "radical theories" and "dangerous and harmful rules," indicating clear opposition to adoption.


Disapprove of Transgender school policy proposals

The commenter explicitly says, "I disagree with the transgender policies" and asks to disapprove them. They also object to policies that "remove parents from the discussion," indicating opposition to the proposed guidance as written.


The commenter explicitly says, "Strongly Do Not Approve of Transgender Policies" and argues the policies are "not helpful" and would "create fear and mistrust in our schools." They also say the only benefit would be driving families to private schools or homeschooling, indicating rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do not agree with these proposed policies" and asks, "Please do not approve," which clearly indicates opposition to adoption. No supporting reasons or requests for modification are provided beyond rejection.


The commenter explicitly says, "I DO NOT agree with this preposterous policy," which clearly rejects the regulation. The phrase "This is poison to a child's mind" further indicates strong opposition rather than a request for changes.


The commenter explicitly says, "I am writing to protest the bizarre and harmful transgender policies" and urges, "Please consider the consequences of your actions if you continue down this path." This is a clear rejection of the proposed policies rather than a request for modification.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose the proposed guidelines," which directly states opposition to adoption. The religious justification, "God created male and female," reinforces that they reject the transgender student policies on principle.


Do not support, too much power to schools/government, dangerous precedent

The commenter explicitly says "Do not support" and argues the policies give schools "too much power." They object to specific provisions such as not telling parents about bathroom/locker room sharing and mandatory reporting, indicating they want the regulation rejected rather than adopted.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy with "NO, I DISAGREE FULLY" and repeated "NO NO NO". They also call it "sick and disgusting" and say it is "sick and twisted," indicating clear opposition to adopting the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly disagree," and argues that "This is up to the parents not educators," indicating rejection of the proposed school policy. The statement that it is "the most ridiculous thing I have heard" and that schools should not "punish the parents" further shows opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do not approve the proposed guidelines for schools," which directly rejects the regulation. The title "Do not approve" reinforces opposition to adoption.


Policies for the treatment of transgender students

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly disapprove of all policies" and argues they are "harmful to all students" and have "no place in public schools." This is a clear rejection of the proposed regulation rather than a request for modification.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly urge you NOT to support the proposed new transgender guidelines," which is a direct rejection of the regulation. They also argue it would "jeopardize the safety of children," "take away the rights of parents," and "hampers free speech," all of which are reasons against adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do NOT support" and "I VEHEMENTLY oppose this legislation through and through." They object to restroom/locker room access and to the policy's handling of parental notification, saying it "takes away a parent's ability to parent."


The commenter explicitly says, "I wholeheartedly call on you to reject this guidance document," which is a direct request to reject the regulation. They also argue it is "damaging," a "real abrogation of the rights of others," and a "Forced Speech" policy, all indicating opposition.


Please not not approve this - horrible policy

The commenter explicitly says, "Please not not approve this" and calls it a "horrible policy," which clearly rejects adoption. They argue it is "offensive" and claims it would "harass and intimidate children," indicating opposition to the regulation.


The commenter repeatedly rejects the proposal as "appalling," "disruptive and unenforceable," and says "These proposals are not" equitable. They explicitly urge the agency to "Go back to the drawing board" and argue the policies would create "infinite discord" if implemented.


VDOE draft model policies for the treatment of transgender students

The commenter explicitly says the issue "should not be addressed by the state or the school system" and calls it "another example of government overreach." They also urge schools to "Concentrate education on math, history, science" instead, indicating rejection of the proposed policies.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy’s premise, saying children should be taught “truth from God’s word” and warning against “governmental approval” of the gender guidance. They frame the regulation as a moral and religious violation that would bring “judgment” on the commonwealth, indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I am opposed to these policies" and repeatedly argues the policies should be "put on hold" or not approved. They also urge that gender-related decisions "must wait until post high school" and say, "If these policies are approved, we will lose many good teachers," indicating clear rejection of the regulation.


Strongly disapprove of the Transgender draft policies being presented

The commenter explicitly says, "I do not approve of the draft model policies" and titles the comment "Strongly disapprove." They argue the policies are "radical ideas" that would cause "confusion for our children" and be "devastating," indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I'm in favor of caring for ALL in our state," which signals approval of inclusive transgender policies. Although they note that "not everyone agrees with these policies," the overall message asks the state to represent everyone and does not oppose adoption.


The commenter explicitly says the guidance is "very one sided" and concludes, "I think these agendas are forgetting how serious these types of decisions are," indicating they want the policies rejected. The title "Disapprove" and repeated criticism of allowing children and the state to decide also show clear opposition to adoption.


Do Not Approve Proposed Transgender Guidelines

The commenter explicitly says, "Please do not approve the proposed transgender guidelines!" and repeatedly argues against the policy as written, citing "parental rights," religious views, and objections to school exposure for young children. Although they suggest one limited accommodation—"By allowing them to use the teacher's bathrooms the problem is solved"—the overall thrust is to reject the proposed guidelines and avoid changes to current school practices.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do NOT approve of these regulations" and rejects the transgender policy. They further criticize the guidelines as "radical theories" that "eradicate all distinctions between male and female," indicating clear opposition to adoption.


Illogical, unscientific, a set up for teacher abuse by trans students

The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, calling it "illogical, unscientific" and saying it "flies in the face of biblical truth" and is "inherently unconstitutional." They argue it will cause "more confusion, conflict, legal issues" and object to protections for transgender students.


The commenter explicitly says "Do Not Approve" and argues that "Government has no right to force this into the family," which clearly rejects the regulation. Calling it "extreme and ridiculous" further indicates opposition rather than a request for changes.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do not approve of the proposed guidelines," which directly rejects the regulation. The rest of the comment criticizes the policy as "radical theories" that "eradicate all distinctions between male and female" and "indoctrinate our school children," reinforcing opposition.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do NOT support this," and argues the regulations "defy science" and would not be good for students' well-being. They also object to school involvement in gender discussions and say teachers should not be forced to act against their "religious or personal convictions."


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly disapprove" and ends with "PLEASE REVOKE THESE REGULATIONS," which clearly opposes adoption of the proposed policies. The statement that the regulations are "very dangerous" further reinforces rejection rather than support or neutrality.


The commenter clearly rejects the proposed policies, calling them "the most ridiculous thing" and "ABSURD," and saying they would be "impossible to follow." The rhetorical question "Why don't we just let the CHILDREN be in charge?!" further signals opposition rather than a request for clarification or neutral input.


The title explicitly says, "Do Not Approve Proposed Transgender Guidelines," which clearly rejects adoption of the regulation. No body text adds nuance or support for any changes, so the comment is a straightforward opposition.


The commenter explicitly opens with "DO NOT support" and argues the policy would "eliminat[e] privacy and safety" and "prohibit" notifying parents, indicating clear rejection of the regulation. They also call the pronoun standard "absurd," reinforcing opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do not support the guidelines being proposed" and asks, "Please do not pass this!" This is a clear rejection of the regulation as proposed.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do NOT support" and threatens legal action if their sons are placed in "inappropriate situations." They also argue the policy would "jeopardize the majority to support the .5%," indicating rejection of the transgender student policies.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do not approve of the transgender policy" and repeatedly argues against it, including opposition to bathroom access, privacy provisions, and school authority over gender-related issues. They also call for restricting facilities to "biologically the gender they were born with" and say the school should not "undermine" parents.


The commenter explicitly says, "This blatent indoctrination" and states they are "opposed" to government forcing them to act in a certain way. They reject the policy as harmful, saying it will "contribute nothing" and that "Ignoring physical differences... and the impact it will have on children" is "egregious."


100% Support as a parent and human being

The commenter explicitly says, "I fully support the proposed policies" and frames the regulation as beneficial for their non-binary child. They also express approval of the broader goal of reducing discrimination, indicating clear support for adoption.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, writing "Absolutely DO NOT agree with the proposed recommendations for my children and/or grandchildren." This is a clear opposition to adopting the transgender student policies.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do NOT approve of their proposed guidelines" and argues against the regulation as "radical theories" that would "indoctrinate our school children." This is a clear rejection of the proposed policies rather than a request for modification.


definitely oppose this...very harmful for all..transgender issue

The commenter explicitly says "Oppose this transgender school policy" and calls it "totally not appropriate" for schools or government. The language indicates a clear rejection of the proposed regulation rather than a request for changes.


The commenter explicitly rejects the proposed policies, calling them "reverse discrimination" and saying there is "a reasonable alternative without punishing the majority." The body argues against accommodating transgender students and says the policies should not be adopted as written.


.How can professing educated people promote transgenderism?  Crazy!

The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, asking officials to "defend the children" and stating "Do not be negligent to deny it as an illness." They argue the bill will "promote the illness" and cause "destruction and death," which clearly indicates opposition to adoption of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "Vehemently Disapprove of this policy" and calls it a "horrible expansion of immorality and social sickness," which clearly indicates opposition to adoption. They also urge readers to reject the policy by referring to outside concerns, reinforcing a negative position.


The commenter explicitly argues against the policies, calling them a "violation" of the U.S. and Virginia Constitutions and saying they are "inherently impossible to enforce." They also warn the policies would violate due process and privacy rights and impose litigation costs on taxpayers, indicating rejection of adoption.


Policies for the treatment of transgendered students

The commenter clearly argues against adoption, saying the policies will "open the flood gates of dissention, chaos, and lawsuits" and calling them "gasoline on the fires of the culture wars." They also claim the rules ignore religion, parental rights, and will drive families out of public schools, all of which indicates opposition to the regulation.


MANY MORE WILL REMOVE THEIR KIDS FROM PUBLIC SCHOOLS

The commenter explicitly says, "I am strongly opposed" and ends with "I oppose these guidelines." They argue the policies are "tyrannical," "morally wrong," and harmful, and warn they will remove children from public schools if adopted.


The commenter explicitly says "NO" and ends with "VOTE NO!" indicating clear opposition to the proposed transgender student policies. They argue the policy is a "sin issue" and that children should instead be taught to accept themselves and follow God's word, which shows they do not want the regulation adopted.


Policies are not scientifically based-ridiculous

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly do not agree with these guidelines" and argues they should not exist, claiming they are "absolutely crazy" and will "do more harm than good." This is a clear rejection of the proposed transgender student policies.


Transgenderism:  Why are we lying to our children?  Boys are boys and girls are girls.  Period.

The commenter explicitly rejects the policy’s premise, saying it is "not right to teach our children" they can be other than how they are born and asking why officials "won't" hear those who "object to transgender policy making." The comment frames the policy as harmful and inappropriate, indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "Do not support at any level," which clearly rejects the proposed policies. They also argue the policy is being imposed with "complete disregard for the other's views or beliefs" and say it should be "placed on a ballots and voted for," indicating opposition to adoption as written.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do not agree with current proposed gender-identity policies," which clearly rejects the regulation. The appeal to "protect our children" and letting them "freely discover for themselves who they were created to become" indicates opposition to the transgender student policies as written.


The commenter explicitly states, "I support the draft guidance put forth by the VDOE," which directly endorses the proposed regulation. There is no qualifying language suggesting opposition or neutrality.


None of your constituents want this. Will you actually listen?

The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, calling it "nonsense" and asking whether officials will "actually listen" instead of "appease" it. They argue it will create lawsuits and harm schools, teachers, and students, which indicates opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly objects to the policy change, saying "If you continue with this change in policies" it will "rob[] parents and students of their constitutional and religious rights." They also argue the agency lacks authority and call the action "illegal," indicating they want the regulation rejected rather than adopted.


The commenter explicitly states, "I do not approve of the guidelines for transgender students," which directly rejects the proposed regulation. No qualifying language suggests support or neutrality.


Transgenderism will destroy the school system

The commenter explicitly says, "I am strongly opposed to adopting any such policy" and repeatedly argues against it as a "trojan horse" that threatens parents and children. They also criticize the policy’s treatment of athletics and bathrooms, indicating clear rejection of the regulation.


The commenter clearly rejects the policy, calling it "pronoun nonsense" and asking "What parent is OK with this". They also argue that there are only "TWO genders" and criticize the proposal as "thought police on the left," indicating opposition to the transgender student guidance.


The commenter explicitly says, "Wholeheartedly Support" and "I am proud to support this guidance." They also endorse the policy goals, stating it would help schools provide "a safe and inclusive educational experience for all students, especially our LGBT youth."


The commenter explicitly attacks the policy with phrases like "don't tell parents" and "You continue your assault on families," indicating rejection of the regulation. They also argue there is "no scientific basis," which is used to oppose adoption rather than request changes.


The commenter explicitly says, "I cannot support these policies" and frames them as creating an "undo burden" and "ethical complication." They object to reduced parental involvement and fear teachers could be culpable for "perceived" discrimination, indicating rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly states, "I DO NOT SUPPORT" and reinforces it with "I adamantly do not support this bill!" This is a clear rejection of the proposed regulation with no qualifying support or suggested amendments.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do not support this waste of time and money," which clearly rejects the proposed policies. The title, "Stop this nonsense," reinforces opposition rather than offering neutral feedback or a question.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support the draft guidance supplied by VDOE" and repeatedly argues that "Schools should be safe spaces for ALL students." The comment endorses the policies as a way to prevent discrimination and protect LGBTQ+ students.


Please no approve these without religious faith exemption for student, teachers, staff

The commenter explicitly says, "Please don’t allow them to be implemented" and "NO Thank you!" which clearly rejects the regulation. They also ask for a "religious faith exemption," indicating opposition unless substantially changed.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly disagree with these recommendations" and repeats that they are "contrary to science and common sense." They also describe the policies as "lunacy," indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do not approve of their proposed guidelines" and calls the policies "absurd and dangerous," which clearly rejects adoption. They also argue the guidelines would "put impossible requirements for teachers" and "place students at risk," indicating opposition to the regulation's substance rather than a request for minor changes.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support the draft guidance provided by the VDOE" and "I fully support this Guidance Document." They also explain that they want "a school environment that is safe and welcoming for everyone," indicating approval of the regulation's purpose and protections.


Model Policies for the Treatment of Transgender Students in Virginia’s Public Schools)

The commenter explicitly says, "Strongly oppose these policies!" which directly rejects the regulation. They also argue that this issue belongs to "the parent's area of responsibility and authority, not the school's nor the government's," indicating opposition to adoption by public schools/government.


Incorrect Reference Material Used in Proposal

The commenter does not express support for or opposition to the transgender student policies themselves. They only note that a cited OCR reference is outdated, saying the proposal "must be corrected" and the content should be "validated" for compliance with current publications.


The commenter explicitly states "I DO NOT APPROVE" and calls the policy "absolutely insane," which clearly indicates rejection of the regulation. There is no language suggesting support or a neutral request for information.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do not approve of the proposed guidelines" and asks policymakers to avoid "radical progressive social policy." This is a clear rejection of the regulation rather than a request for modification.


The commenter explicitly says, "Do NOT approve this policy" and "I whole heartedly disapprove this policy and it’s guidelines," which clearly rejects adoption. The statement that the policy would be "hurting every child" and references to "gender confusion" indicate opposition to the proposed transgender student policies.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do not support this policy," which directly states opposition to adoption. The follow-up phrase appears to be a garbled or incomplete explanation, but it does not change the clear negative position.


Proposed policies for the treatment of transgender students

The commenter explicitly says, "I object to the proposed policies" and calls them "totally unworkable." They also urge parents to "stand for and protect their children from these proposed troubling policies," indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do not approve of your proposed guidelines," which directly rejects the regulation. The rest of the comment criticizes the policies as "radical theories" that "eradicate all distinctions between male and female" and "indoctrinate our school," reinforcing opposition.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy as "nonsense" and says schools have "no business teaching our kids about this," indicating opposition to the transgender student guidance. The appeal to "God's truth" and preference for parents/family to teach about sex and gender further shows they do not want the regulation adopted.


The commenter explicitly calls the policies "ridiculous and disturbing" and says excluding parents is "completely WRONG," indicating clear rejection of the regulation. The reference to a "plan to destroy our country" further shows strong opposition rather than a request for modification.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, calling it "insane" and saying schools should "stop the stupidity" of teaching based on feelings. The statement "Boys are boys and girls are girls" indicates opposition to the transgender student guidance and its underlying premise.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, writing "NO" and "Stop this radical nonsense, and keep it OUT of our schools." They argue the guidance should be replaced with treatment-focused approaches and describe the policy as harmful and abusive.


The commenter explicitly says, "I Do Not Support" and argues that Virginia should not teach children otherwise about gender, indicating rejection of the proposed transgender student policies. Phrases like "We need to put God back in our schools" and "Stop taking Jesus away" show opposition to the regulation on religious grounds.


The commenter explicitly condemns the policy as "insane" and says it is "political correctness gone to new depths of uselessness." They also state it "is a detriment to students and teachers," indicating clear opposition to adoption.


Guidelines for treatment of transgender students

The commenter says the proposed guidelines are "much too extreme" and argues they should not be used as written. They explicitly reject the policy's approach as "indoctrination" and call for "definite distinctions between male and female" rather than blurring them, indicating opposition to adoption in its current form.


The commenter explicitly calls the proposal "vile and evil" and says it is "contrary to God’s laws," which clearly rejects adoption of the regulation. They also argue it will "confuse and harm" children and unjustly separate parents from their children, indicating strong opposition rather than a request for changes.


The commenter explicitly says "Support!!" and thanks the policy makers for "supporting our transgender youth," which clearly endorses the regulation. There is no language indicating opposition or neutrality.


The commenter argues that policy should "stick with the obvious biological difference" and says we should "stop catering to people's personal choice or felt needs," which clearly rejects the proposed transgender student policies. The statement that policies departing from "science" are irrational indicates opposition to adopting the regulation as written.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do NOT approve of the proposed guidelines" and calls them "disgusting" and "ridiculous left wing propaganda." This is a clear rejection of the regulation as proposed.


Do not support this policy that denies basic biology and criminalizes those who stand for truth

The commenter explicitly says, "I object strongly to policies" and the title states, "Do not support this policy." They argue the policy would endanger girls and unfairly affect athletics by "allowing biological males into their bathrooms and dressing rooms" and competing in female sports.


The commenter explicitly says, "Please do not support this legislation," which directly opposes adoption. They further argue it is "creating chaos and disorder" and that "Parents are the authority here, not the school system," indicating rejection of the policy's approach.


The commenter explicitly urges resistance to the policy, saying "Let's all stand against this!!!" They also call it "absurb" and "totally against the Word of God," indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do not approve of the proposed guidelines," which directly rejects adoption of the regulation. They also criticize it as "radical theories" that "eradicate all distinctions between male and female," indicating substantive opposition rather than a neutral observation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support the draft guidance provided by the VDOE." They further endorse it because it would help schools provide "a safe and inclusive educational experience for all students," indicating approval of adoption.


The commenter clearly rejects the policy, writing "NO NO" and asking "How hard is this to figure this out," which signals opposition to the transgender student policies. They also argue that "we are giving our kids more rights than we the parents" and conclude "What is wrong is wrong," indicating they want the regulation rejected.


The commenter explicitly says "Support 100%" and thanks the document, indicating clear approval of the regulation. They also endorse its purpose by stating that transgender students "deserve the same protections and rights" and that the policy helps them feel "safe and protected."


The commenter explicitly says, "I do not approve of their proposed guidelines" and criticizes them as "radical theories" that "eradicate all distinctions between male and female." This is a clear rejection of the regulation rather than a request for changes or neutral input.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do not approve" and calls the policy "ill-advised." They also argue to "eliminate girls' sports" and object to restroom and locker room access, indicating clear opposition to the regulation.


Completely and totally object to this misguided and harmful policy

The commenter explicitly says they "Completely and totally object" to the policy and calls it "misguided and harmful." They argue it is "not rational" and "not based on science," and urge officials to focus on other priorities instead of adopting these policies.


Politically correct transgender policies

The commenter explicitly rejects the policies, calling them "insane" and urging parents to "stand up & against these." The language shows clear opposition to adoption of the regulation.


Irreversably damaging policy for our children and country

The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, calling it "the most destructive policy" and saying "This should not even be discussed." The language indicates they want the regulation rejected rather than adopted or modified.


100% against this! Please do not support!

The commenter explicitly says, "100% against this!" and "Please do not support!" which clearly indicates opposition to adopting the regulation. There is no qualifying language or request for modification, only a direct rejection.


The commenter explicitly says "Completely against this" and argues the policy should be "kept out" of schools. They describe it as "garbage" and "despicable," indicating clear rejection of the regulation rather than support or neutrality.


Unnatural and harmful to normal child development

The commenter explicitly rejects the policy by saying the recommendations "do not follow normal natural development" and that "The school has no role in this issue." They also warn it could lead to "litigation" and "loss of taxpayer funding," indicating opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I approve," which directly supports the regulation. The body reinforces this approval by expressing gladness that school policy will "no longer harass young people," indicating endorsement of the guidance.


The commenter explicitly says, "I disagree with this policy" and argues it should not be adopted because it could allow "a predator" access to bathrooms or locker rooms. The statement that it has a "grave opportunity to create more harm than good" indicates clear opposition to the regulation as written.


Forces gender ideology on those who disagre with it and fails to protect students and parents

The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, saying it "impose[s] gender ideology" and would "trample the actual rights" of students, parents, teachers, and staff. They also argue it would "put youth at risk" of harm, which indicates opposition rather than a request for modification.


The commenter explicitly states, "I do not approve," which directly indicates opposition to the proposed regulation. No additional context suggests support or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do not approve of these proposed guidelines," which directly rejects the regulation. They also criticize it as "radical theories" that "eradicate all distinctions between male and female," indicating opposition to adoption.


Support This Policy In Virginia and Everywhere

The commenter explicitly says the policy is "a step in the correct direction" and that "schools should be following these guidelines." They also argue it helps "supporting transgender students" and "does nothing to impact other students' ability to learn and grow," indicating clear approval of adoption.


I do not approve of your proposed policy.

The commenter explicitly states, "I do not approve of your proposed policy," which is a direct rejection of the regulation. No supporting language or suggested amendments are provided.


Transgender Rights at the expense of everyone’s rights

The commenter explicitly argues the policies "go against the protection of all children" and "seek to harm many," indicating rejection of the regulation. They object to multiple provisions, including restroom access, limits on negative speech, and transition without parental knowledge or consent.


The commenter dismisses the regulation as "nonsense" and criticizes the VDOE for spending time on it instead of academics, indicating opposition to adopting these transgender student policies. The phrase "Our tax dollars at work" is sarcastic and reinforces disapproval.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support the draft guidance provided from VDOE" and endorses it as creating "an inclusive, safe space for all children." They also state it will protect LGBTQ+ students from discrimination, which clearly indicates approval of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support this policy" and adds that it is "the morally correct choice." They also state it "reflects the needs of the students it aims to protect," indicating approval of adoption.


The commenter explicitly characterizes the policy as "Unnatural and harmful to normal child development," which indicates rejection of the proposed transgender student policies. There is no language suggesting support or a request for modification; the comment is a direct negative judgment on the regulation itself.


100% Support - this policy will save many lives

The commenter explicitly says "100% Support" and argues the policy "will save many lives" and "make our trans kid feel seen and affirmed." They clearly endorse adoption of the regulation and do not request weakening it.


The commenter explicitly says, "Do not approve of this proposed measure-- virtually 100% of it," which is a clear rejection of the regulation. The phrase "virtually 100% of it" indicates opposition to most or all of the proposal rather than support with minor edits.


I support this. The hateful and ignorant comments here show it’s desperately needed.

The commenter explicitly says, "I whole heartedly support this proposal," which directly endorses adoption of the regulation. They also argue that the protections are "necessary," reinforcing support for the policy.


The commenter explicitly says "DO NOT SUPPORT" and rejects the policy as "gender confusion" and "codependency." The statement that their child will attend private school because of this proposal indicates opposition to adopting the regulation.


The commenter explicitly states, "I do not approve of any of this," which clearly rejects the proposed transgender student policies. The title, "I do not approve," reinforces that they want the regulation rejected rather than modified.


The commenter explicitly calls for the policies to be rejected, saying to "vote DOWN these wrong-headed, dangerous policies." The title "100% DISAPPROVAL" and the argument against favoring a transgender minority make the opposition unmistakable.


Opposed to proposed draft model policies for Transgender students

The commenter explicitly says, "I am against the Model Policies" and closes with "Please do not support these policies!" The body argues the policies are harmful, citing concerns about pronouns, parental notification, bathroom access, privacy, and religious objections.


I OPPOSE THIS STATE-PRESCRIBED MANIPULATION OF SEMIOTICS IN SCHOOLS

The commenter explicitly states "I OPPOSE THIS" and ends with "Just say no to this bad idea," making clear they want the regulation rejected. The body repeatedly characterizes the proposal as "counterfeit," "indoctrination," and "ideological propaganda," reinforcing strong opposition.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do not approve of the proposed guidelines" and argues against transgender restroom access. They frame the policy as unsafe, stating that "All females and especially children need to feel safe" and that "Separate but equal is much safer for all," which indicates rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I am fine with it" and describes the guidance as "helpful" and "a helpful starting point" for schools. They also encourage continued efforts to improve "safety, privacy, and access to education," which indicates approval of the regulation's goals and content.


Oppose....This severely hurts the ones that it is intended to help.  The irony is undeniable.

The commenter explicitly begins with "Oppose" and argues the policy "severely hurts the ones that it is intended to help." They also question the "real agenda" and say society is "putting children through needless pain," indicating clear rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I’m all for it," which directly supports adopting the regulation. The follow-up, "These children need all the help and sympathy we can give them," reinforces approval of the policy’s purpose.


The comment explicitly says "Disapprove" in both the title and body, indicating clear opposition to adopting the regulation. It provides no supporting reasons or requested changes beyond rejection.


The commenter explicitly says "Oppose VDOE Proposed Guidelines" and argues the policy "falls outside of the mission of the Public School System." They also object that it "seeks to take control away from parents," indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter is explicitly upset about Virginia allowing "children who R confused about there sexual identity" and rejects the premise that a child can identify differently from their sex at birth. They also argue the state should instead require parental involvement and counseling, indicating opposition to the proposed transgender student policies as written.


The commenter explicitly says "100% oppose this" and calls the policy "Unbelievable" and something that should not be "introduced into our school system." They argue bullying protection should be handled locally and by families instead, and warn of a "mass exodus" if adopted.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do not approve of these proposed guidelines," which directly rejects the regulation. They also criticize the policy as "radical theories" that would "eradicate all distinctions between male and female" and "indoctrinate our school children," indicating opposition to adoption.


Strongly Disapprove of Proposed "Transgender" Policies

The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Disapprove" of the proposed policies and argues they should not be adopted. They object to schools facilitating transgender students and say it would "cause further harm," while also criticizing the policies for "violating the rights of the parents."


The commenter rejects the policy’s framing, stating that sex is "determined at conception" and criticizing the idea that it is "assigned at birth." They also argue against changing "language and/or culture," which indicates opposition to the transgender student guidance.


Let's support our students in any way we can

The commenter explicitly says, "I support this effort to recognize and affirm whatever decisions students make about their own gender identity." They also endorse the policy on safety grounds, stating, "If this keeps one student from suicidal feelings, it is worth it."


The comment explicitly says "Disapprove 100%" and "100% Disapprove," which clearly indicates rejection of the proposed regulation. No supporting or neutral language is present.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support laws or regulations that provide freedom for transgender people to live their best lives," which clearly endorses the regulation's purpose. They also argue against restricting transgender people and say those who do so "should not be allowed decide the laws," indicating approval of protections for transgender students.