BIOLOGICAL AND SPIRITUAL CONSIDERATIONS OF OTHERS AS WELL

The commenter rejects key parts of the policy, saying transgender students' "rights" should not supersede others' rights and objecting to bathroom sharing with someone "who was a man at birth." They also say the issue "has gone too far" and criticize the burden on educators, indicating opposition to adoption as written.


This policy tramples on the People's rights. State's right do not extend to forcing gender ideology on those who disagree with it.

The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, saying it "tramples on the People's rights," is "unconstitutional," and ends with "DO NOT TRAMPLE ON EVERYONE ELSE's RIGHTS!" They argue the policy would force "gender ideology" and compel speech, indicating opposition to adoption.


I oppose this bill. I want to know what is going on in my children’s school and being taught.

The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose this bill strongly" and repeatedly rejects the policy as an intrusion on parental rights and school authority. They argue the schools and government are "cram[ming] down ideologies" and should not address transgender identity in this way.


The commenter explicitly labels the submission "Opposed" and argues that "Allowing those feelings to take precedence over truth is not the answer," which rejects the policy's approach to transgender students. The references to "God has given us a moral code" and criticism of "feelings and emotions" indicate opposition to the regulation's underlying premise.


Virginia School Transgender Polices: DONT DO IT

The commenter explicitly urges the agency to reject the policy, opening with "DONT DO IT" and repeatedly saying "please do not make policies" that support transgender students. They argue the guidance is "pure insanity" and would "harm children," showing clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I Do Not Support" and repeatedly argues the policies should not be adopted, calling them "another attempt to impose woke ideology" and saying "These proposed policies do not reflect the values of the people of Virginia." The comment objects to multiple provisions, including privacy protections, reduced gender segregation, gender-neutral attire, and staff training.


Gender identity CAN NOT be independent of biological sex. Stop the madness!

The commenter explicitly says the policy is "unscientific," has "no place in public schools," and urges the Department to "strongly oppose" it. They also describe it as an "obvious destabilizing agenda" and object to being "forced to comply," indicating clear opposition to adoption.


Document: Model Policies for the treatment of transgender students in VA's Public Schools/22.1-23.3

The commenter explicitly states, "THEREFORE WE ARE OPPOSED TO THIS BILL!" and argues the policy is "confusing the little ones" and promoting an "evil lifestyle." They ask to "Leave them to be how they were created, boy or girl," which clearly rejects the proposed transgender student policies.


The commenter explicitly says "Oppose the Guidance" and argues the policies should not be adopted because they conflict with their view of sex and religion. They state that being required to recognize transgender identities would be "to compel a religious belief" and cite the Virginia Constitution as a reason to reject the guidance.


The commenter explicitly says, "I DO NOT APPROVE OF YOUR POLICY" and states it "should not be forced on our children," which clearly rejects the proposed transgender student policy. The language "This is wrong on a moral level" further indicates opposition rather than a request for changes.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support this guidance 100%" and closes with "Please implement it." They also endorse the core provisions by praising preferred names, clothing choices, and pronouns as affirming and harmless.


The commenter says the policy is "one sided and does not protect everyone" and argues it is "discrimination against other peoples religion." They explicitly object to telling parents they cannot "encourage them to embrace their god given birth sex," indicating opposition to the regulation as written.


Government overreach and assault on parental rights

The commenter explicitly says the policies are "harmful" and concludes, "This is bad policy for all Virginians!" They argue the policies "undermine the primary role parents have" and make no allowances for those who disagree, indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do not approve of these policies" and adds that "they have no place in our educational system," which clearly rejects adoption of the regulation. No supporting or neutral language is present.


I do not approve of the proposed policy!

The commenter explicitly says, "I do not approve of the proposed policy" and repeats that they "do not approve." The rest of the comment uses strongly negative language like "this policy is insanity" and "CRAZY!" indicating rejection of the regulation.


The commenter says, "I am 100% against this" and calls it a "ridiculous policy," which clearly rejects the regulation. They also object to restroom access for transgender students, saying a "male" should not use the same restroom as his daughter and proposing a separate restroom instead.


The commenter explicitly says, "I beg of you not to adopt this plan as is!" and repeatedly argues the proposed changes are "HARMFUL" and would create "dramatic and, quite possibly traumatic, changes." Although they support protecting students from bullying, their overall position is against adopting the regulation because of concerns about bathrooms, changing spaces, and gender fluidity discussions.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do not support this bill as written" and later, "I strongly disapprove of this bill." They argue it would create "confusion and chaos" and object to bathroom access, pronoun requirements, and disciplinary action, while only suggesting it needs "major revision."


Model Policy for the Treatment of Transgender Students

The commenter explicitly says, "I support this policy" and adds that they "support transgender students in general." This is a clear endorsement of adopting the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I disapprove–not mildly, but strongly," which clearly rejects the proposed policy. They also dismiss it as an "esoteric WOKE one," indicating opposition to the regulation itself rather than a request for changes.


The commenter explicitly says the guidelines are "absolutely in appropriate for schools & students" and calls for "Disapprove of Trans Language." They argue against allowing students to change identity without parent knowledge or legal documentation and reject shared bathroom/locker room access, indicating opposition to the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do not approve of the proposed guidelines" and repeatedly states they are "opposed" to the policy. They argue it is a "government power grab" and object to schools helping students explore gender without parental knowledge, indicating rejection of the regulation.


The commenter says, "I strongly disagree with the idea" and calls the policy "going way too far," indicating clear opposition to adoption. They object specifically to bathroom/locker room access and pronoun requirements, and argue teachers should not be forced to comply.


This Policy Poses great Security and Safety Concerns for ALL.

The commenter explicitly rejects the transgender policy, saying it "violates" enrollment, security, and safety rules and that "It is NOT up to the parents OR the students to identify or change their gender when enrolling in school." They argue schools should require legal documents and that principals "can NOT enroll" students without them, which is a clear call against the policy's approach.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support this policy" and repeatedly argues that a "rigorous policy is needed to protect a vulnerable group of students." They frame the regulation as necessary for student safety, acceptance, and well-being, not as something to reject or weaken.


This proposal promotes inequality - please ammend

The commenter explicitly asks to "please ammend" the proposal and argues it should be expanded, not rejected. They criticize the current language as an "anti-community approach" and propose additional affirming language for parents, communities, and school boards, indicating support for the regulation with changes.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do not approve of this policy," which directly rejects the regulation. They further argue that transgender identity is "subjective, not factual" and mock the policy with the "identify as a dog" example, indicating opposition to adoption.


NOT PART OF PUBLIC EDUCATIONAL CIRRICULUM _No responsibility to add policy definition

The commenter explicitly says, "This is NOT a PUBLIC SCHOOL responsibility. Therefore no policy is required" and calls it "Overstepping educational scope and responsibilities." This indicates opposition to adopting the proposed transgender student policies.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY disapprove!" and argues the policy is "Not the purpose of the educational system." They also state, "This actually hurts all involved," which indicates opposition to adoption.


I strongly oppose the VDOE proposed guidelines.

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose the VDOE proposed guidelines" and "I do not approve of the proposed guidelines." They also object to the policy on ideological grounds, calling it "radical theories" that "eradicate all distinctions between male and female."


Violation of Public School Responsibilities _Remove statement

The commenter explicitly says to "Remove all language below" and argues it is "NOT a PUBLIC SCHOOL responsibility" to include the cited guidance. They object to the policy language about parents and reporting to CPS, quoting it as something that should not be in the regulation.


The comment contains only the title "New transgender guidelines" and no body text, so it does not express approval, opposition, or any substantive position on the regulation. With no additional content, the stance cannot be inferred.


The commenter says they are "Totally opposed to these policies," which is a direct rejection of the regulation. They also state the policies "undermine parents and religious beliefs," indicating substantive opposition rather than a request for changes.


The commenter explicitly says, "Please do not pass this bill," which is a direct rejection of the proposed regulation. They also argue it "discriminates against parents" and would "do a real disservice" to students, indicating opposition rather than a request for modification.


Policy in Violation of Federal & State requirements (Security issues for ALL)

The commenter explicitly recommends “removing vague statements” and says there “should not be a Policy for ‘claiming identity’,” indicating opposition to the proposed transgender student policy. They argue it creates “a great security threat to ALL” and object to allowing students to assert identity “without any substantiating evidence.”


The commenter explicitly calls the proposal "so incredibly destructive" and predicts it will drive parents and teachers away from public schools. They also reject the policy on religious and parental-rights grounds, asking "Where are the rights of parents?" and stating "Government schools, you do not own our children."


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, calling it "lunacy" and dismissing transgender identity with "Give me a birth certificate and I’ll tell you what gender you are." The language indicates opposition to the regulation’s recognition and treatment of transgender students.


Strongly oppose proposed transgender guidelines!

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose the proposed transgender guidelines" and repeatedly argues they should not be adopted. They object to pronoun requirements, school involvement in gender identity, and bathroom/locker room access, saying the policies are "inappropriate" and would violate privacy and safety.


Children should not be pawns for government social experiments and power

The commenter explicitly rejects the policy’s approach, urging that schools "objectively honor them by their biological sex" and saying "Do not endanger them". The title and body frame the regulation as harmful, calling it "government social experiments" and "child abuse," which indicates opposition to adoption.


The commenter argues the proposed policies are "contradictory" and quotes multiple provisions to challenge them, including confidentiality rules, self-identification standards, CPS reporting, and pronoun requirements. The overall thrust is criticism of the regulation and concern that it creates problematic obligations for school staff.


The commenter explicitly says, "I fundamentally oppose the intent" and also opposes "each of the individual articles." This is a clear rejection of the proposed guidance rather than a request for changes.


Remove statement - unclear, confusing, vague, violates DOE regulatory enrollment guidelines

The commenter explicitly says to "Remove this statement," that the policy "contradicts" school enrollment and safety requirements, and recommends "removing - all together this statement." They also object to confidentiality provisions, arguing schools would be "prohibited from notifying parents" and that the policy should be rewritten or removed.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly disagree with this proposal," which clearly indicates opposition to adopting the regulation. No supporting reasons or requests for modification are provided beyond that rejection.


The commenter says the policy is a "non-academic burden on teachers" and that teachers "do not need to add this" to their workload, which indicates opposition to adopting the regulation. The title "Unnecessary and Irrelevant" reinforces that they view the policy as unwarranted.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS POLICY!!!" and repeatedly urges that it "SHOULD BE REJECTED BY THE VDOE." They argue it harms girls, destroys girls sports, and violates religious freedom, all of which indicate clear opposition to adoption.


Totally disgusting, again hurting our most PRECIOUS resource, for less than 1% of society!

The commenter explicitly condemns the policy as "Totally disgusting" and says it is "hurting our most PRECIOUS gifts". They also call it "child abuse," which indicates clear opposition to adopting the regulation.


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

The commenter explicitly says, "VDOE please do not do this" and "STOP," indicating they want the policy rejected. They also argue the government should "STAY OUT of my FAMILY BUSINESS" and that these cases should be handled by parents, which opposes the regulation's approach.


The commenter explicitly says, "Please do not enact or even consider any of these policy guidelines," which is a clear rejection of the proposed regulation. The language "truly abhorrent and disgusting" further shows strong opposition to the policy.


The commenter explicitly titles the submission "Strongly Oppose Transgender Policies" and condemns the regulation as "child abuse" and "pure evil." The language shows clear rejection of the proposed policies rather than support or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly says, "I AM AGAINST THIS PROPOSED CHANGE!" which directly rejects the regulation. The title, "TRANSDENDER CHANGES," also signals opposition to the transgender-related policy.


Is this what you want for your children/grandchildren? NO

The commenter explicitly says, "Please do not pass these harmful requirements" and "VDOE must listen to the outcry of the parents!" They argue the policy is harmful, creates confusion, removes parents from involvement, and endangers children, especially girls.


The commenter explicitly says "100% Support" and asks to "Please protect trans and non-binary students". They also state "This is a step in the right direction" and offer "full support," indicating clear approval of the regulation.


Students DO NOT have the authority to Do What Ever they want - when they Feel like it in PUBLIC SCHO

The commenter explicitly says the policy is "Invalid" and "Biased to ONLY transgender students" and repeatedly demands to "Remove statement below." They object to allowing transgender students restroom/locker room access without questioning, indicating opposition to the regulation as written.


Opposed to Transgender Policies - In Favor of Science and Safety for Boys and Girls - Children Grow

The commenter explicitly says the policies are "hurtful" and frames them as dangerous, arguing they should not be adopted. Phrases like "Opposed to Transgender Policies" and claims that allowing restroom or locker room access would make an adult "a danger to those children" show clear rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I 100% support the Model Policy," which directly endorses adoption. The phrase "as a current student" adds personal support but does not change the clear pro-policy stance.


The commenter explicitly says, "I 100% support this document" and praises the guidelines as an "evidence based approach" that helps educators support students. They also endorse the document's purpose of preventing "discrimination and harassment."


The commenter says to "Concentrate teaching students classical education and leave social issues to their parents," which rejects the regulation's focus on transgender-related school policies. This implies the commenter wants schools to avoid adopting or emphasizing these policies.


The commenter explicitly titles the submission "Oppose the new policies regarding transgender students" and argues that society should not "reject reality" in favor of transgender students' self-perception. The comment frames the policies as harmful and as "acceptance of erroneous self-perception," indicating clear opposition to adoption.


PUBLIC SCHOOL_ Students do not run the school.  PERIOD

The commenter explicitly says the policy "should not be considered" and asks to "Remove this statement," indicating rejection of the regulation. They also object to the quoted gender-neutral dress code language, claiming it will "cause disruptions and distractions."


This is an incredible step, approve and pass this to protect kids from bigotry in schools!

The commenter explicitly urges approval multiple times, calling it "an incredible step" and saying "please PASS THIS." They frame the policy as necessary to "protect kids from bigotry in schools" and to protect trans students' rights and fair treatment.


The commenter explicitly says, "These policies will cause more harm then good" and argues they should not be adopted because they are "not based in science," "remove parental rights," and are "a disservice to women's sports." The overall message is a clear rejection of the proposed transgender student policies.


The commenter explicitly states, "I do not approve!" which clearly rejects the proposed transgender student policy. No supporting reasons or requests for modification are provided, but the stance against adoption is unambiguous.


The commenter explicitly calls the policies "very dangerous" and says Virginia "should not go down" this "slippery slope," indicating clear opposition to adoption. They object to multiple provisions, including transgender student participation in sports, pronoun requirements, and privacy/medical guidance, and argue the policies would encourage harmful outcomes.


The commenter explicitly says, "Do Not Support These Proposed Changes," which directly rejects the regulation. The body reinforces opposition by arguing the policies "will hurt children and adults alike" and appealing to a religious view of sex and gender.


The commenter explicitly states, "I do not approve!!" which directly rejects the proposed transgender student policies. There is no qualifying language or request for changes, indicating clear opposition.


Parents have the legal right, via the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA, 1974),

The commenter explicitly says to "remove this draft policy statement" and argues that the policy would improperly keep parents uninformed. They object that staff "DO NOT have the authority to withhold any information from parents/legal caretakers" and that parents should be notified and able to intervene.


The commenter explicitly says, "I am full support the draft guidance provided by the VDOE" and praises it as helping "the success and wellness of all students." The statement that the policies "will truly save lives" is a strong endorsement of adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support the Virginia Department of Education's efforts to support transgender students with this policy." They also affirm that the policy will help protect students' rights and needs, indicating clear approval of adoption.


How much $$$ has VA put aside for when they get sued into the dark ages for this dystopian garbage

The commenter clearly rejects the regulation, calling it "dystopian garbage" and mocking it as something that will get the state "sued into the dark ages." The closing line, "Time for private school!", signals withdrawal in protest rather than support for adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose such policies" and argues they "cause so much harm for our children." The rest of the comment reinforces rejection of the regulation by framing it as denying "truth and facts" and letting "feelings take over our education."


Public School CAN NOT TAKE AWAY PARENTS RIGHTS and withhold information

The commenter explicitly says, "DO NOT approve recommend standard, p12 as written" and argues it is "in violation of parental rights." They object to school staff withholding a student's transgender status from parents and warn that "legal lawsuits may follow."


Model policies for the treatment of transgender students

The commenter explicitly calls the proposed policies "an overreach" and says implementing them would be "potentially more detrimental" to children, indicating rejection of the regulation. They also object that the policies disrespect parents and "set a dangerous precedent," which reinforces opposition rather than support for adoption with changes.


STRONGLY OPPOSE STOP FORCING LIBERAL AGENDAS IN SCHOOL

The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY OPPOSE" and asks to "STOP the pushing social agendas," indicating rejection of the proposed transgender student policies. The complaint that VDOE should "GET BACK TO ACTUAL learning" frames the regulation as an unwelcome priority.


security concern - Public School have to be accountable for ALL and know identity (pick one)

The commenter explicitly says, "This is not a PUBLIC SCHOOL issue" and asks to "Remove statement above," indicating opposition to the proposed transgender student policy language. They also argue it "violates Federal enrollment status" and "poses a security concern," showing they want the regulation rejected or substantially weakened.


The commenter explicitly says, "I fully support these model policies" and frames them as promoting "dignity, respect and safety of ALL persons." They also condemn opposition to the policies as "hateful," which reinforces clear support for adoption.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, calling it "DISGUSTING" and saying "Do not force teachers, parents and students to go along with your ideological agenda." They repeatedly argue it is "completely discriminatory" and ask for a "religious exemption," which indicates opposition to adoption as written.


SAY NO WAY _ identity without any substantiating evidence  (SECURITY CONCERN FOR ALL)

The commenter explicitly says, "Do NOT accept policy as written," and argues schools should require "proper and legal documentation" rather than allowing asserted names/pronouns without evidence. The repeated emphasis on "security," "accountability," and the claim that the policy is "vague, unclear and ambiguous" shows opposition to the regulation as drafted.


I do NOT agree with these new policies,How is this even acceptable?

The commenter explicitly says, "I do NOT agree with these new policies" and calls the bill "harmful and disgusting." They also argue it will "do more harm than good" and object to schools and teachers getting involved, indicating clear opposition to adoption.


Proposed guidelines for Transgender in Schools

The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose these proposed guidelines" and repeatedly argues they are an "overreach" that should not be imposed in schools. They also call the guidelines "non factual and wrong," claim they "put children at risk," and object to pronoun regulation, facilities sharing, and perceived infringement on parental and religious rights.


The commenter explicitly calls the policy an "experiment on children" and says it will "create mass confusion," indicating rejection of the regulation. The question about whether officials want to keep "causing excellent employees and families to leave" further argues against adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I take exception to the proposed legislation" and calls it "an extreme and harmful idea," indicating clear opposition. They also object to "eliminate gender specific language" and frame it as violating "freedom of speech" and "freedom of religion," which shows they do not want the policy adopted.


REMOVE reference to "WISHES of a STUDENT" this is PUBLIC SCHOOL

The commenter explicitly says, "Remove this recommended policy" and argues the guidance is "ambiguous" and should be "remove[d] and re-write[n]." They object to staff being directed to follow a student's "wishes" regarding name and pronouns, indicating opposition to the regulation as written.


The commenter explicitly says "100% SUPPORT THIS POLICY" and repeatedly endorses it as necessary to ensure transgender students are treated fairly and safely. They describe a harmful experience with pronoun refusal and conclude that schools have a responsibility to provide "a safe and equitable learning environment for all children."


The commenter explicitly says, "I have several objections" and repeatedly argues these policies should not be introduced, including "I will not support them being introduced to your children." The comment frames the policies as harmful and contrary to the commenter’s beliefs and parental rights.


The commenter explicitly says "Do NOT support!" and repeatedly urges, "Please do not allow this to happen in our school systems!!" They argue the policies would cause "horrible consequences" and "make so many things worse," indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support these proposals" and states they are "very much needed for the well-being and safety of all students." This is a clear endorsement of adoption.


Remove reference to T-Gender.... Be inclusive and remember others (overweight kids, disabled kids..

The commenter explicitly says to "REMOVE this recommended standard" and argues that citing transgender students is "not enough." They object to the transgender-specific language and say it should be broadened or omitted, which indicates opposition to the proposed policy as written.


The commenter clearly rejects the policy, saying "This is wrong on so many levels" and warning that it will "open so many more issues in our schools." They argue it would allow predators into restrooms/locker rooms and lead to assaults, indicating opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "These changes ought not be adopted," which directly rejects the regulation. They also frame the policy as harmful, saying it "will penalize faithful Christian students, teachers, and families."


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

The commenter explicitly says, "Please do not support this," and repeatedly urges the policies be "revisit[ed] and rewrite[n]." They argue the regulations "take rights away" from cisgender students, families, religious communities, and teachers, and object to privacy, restroom, and CPS-related provisions.


The commenter explicitly endorses the policy, saying "This policy does just that" after arguing to "accept the science" and "embrace God's main message: LOVE ONE ANOTHER." They also thank "the leaders embracing this" and contrast it with "hate and denial," indicating clear support for adoption.


The commenter explicitly says "DO NOT SUPPORT" and argues the policies are "not clear and poorly written." They also object to the idea that "Students wishes and Students can do what ever they want when they want" should be in school policy, indicating rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose this disgraceful act," and argues that officials are "trying to rule our children" and "over ride the rights of parents." This is a clear rejection of the proposed transgender student policies, framed as a defense of parental rights.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose the policies listed in this document" and repeatedly argues against them as "morally wrong." They object to "the removal of parental governance and rights," "allowing children to change their gender," and penalties for pronoun use, all of which indicate rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support this proposal" and argues that "Inclusion for this population is essential." They also frame the policies as protective, saying they "will save lives" and help students feel "validated."


The commenter rejects the policy outright, saying "How dare you try to change what God has created!" and affirming only that "God created us male and female." This is a clear objection to the transgender student policies rather than a request for modification.


The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose the proposed agenda" and rejects the policy as a "liberal agenda." They also call for different policies, indicating they do not want this regulation adopted.


The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose the model policies" and repeatedly argues they should not be adopted, calling them "flawed" and "not evidenced based." They also criticize specific provisions such as discipline for objecting teachers/students and school authority that would "interfere with and undermine parental prerogative."


Fully support the VDOE Guidance Document

The commenter explicitly says, "I fully support this guidance document" and argues that it will help LGBTQ+ students feel safe and overcome discrimination. The comment endorses the regulation as a needed response to harassment and discrimination.


The commenter repeatedly questions the need for the policy and says, "There was no need for action by the legislator," indicating opposition to adoption as written. They also argue it is "more about scoring political points with identity politics" and suggest it should be rewritten in "more general terms," which signals they do not support the proposed regulation in its current form.


The commenter explicitly says they "do not agree with proposed documents," indicating opposition to the regulation. The concern about "parents not being informed of school's actions with child" suggests they want the policy rejected or changed to require parental notification.


The commenter explicitly calls the policy "Completely unnecessary and dangerous" and asks, "Why is this necessary?" They argue it should not apply to minors and that such matters should wait until "18+," indicating rejection of the regulation.


Parent of 3 Students Supports This Policy

The commenter explicitly says, "I support this policy" and describes it as "a great foundation for support to all students." They also state it "will help make school a safer place," which reinforces approval of adoption.


I support the draft guidance provided by the VDOE.

The commenter explicitly states, "I support the draft guidance provided by the VDOE," which directly endorses adoption of the regulation. There is no qualifying language or criticism suggesting opposition or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy as "Completely wrong and completely confusing" and asks to "keep real biology and real science," indicating opposition to the transgender student guidance. The phrase "Please leave fairy tales out of our schools" further shows they want the regulation rejected.


The commenter explicitly says, "Fully support this guidance" and "100% support this necessary guidance," which clearly endorses adoption of the regulation. There is no indication of opposition or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support the initiatives to protect trans and nonbinary youth in our schools" and argues that these protections "can and will save students' lives." The comment endorses the regulation’s goals of nondiscrimination, inclusion, and school-level protections for transgender students.


Completely Wrong and completely confusing. Let's keep science and biology accurate.

The commenter explicitly asks, "Please leave this garbage out of our schools," indicating they want the policy rejected. They also argue that "there are only 2 sexes" and object to the guidance as "completely wrong and completely confusing," which shows clear opposition to the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I totally support this guidance" and "Please follow the guidance for transgender students as described above." This is a clear endorsement of adopting the regulation as written.


The commenter explicitly says, "I completely support this!" and adds that it is "backed by science" and beneficial "for the health and well-being of all students." This is a clear endorsement of adopting the regulation.


The commenter explicitly argues against the policy, saying it would "endanger all children" and "harm them all." They also urge, "Don’t be the cause of fostering situations for rape and sexual abuse," which clearly rejects adoption of the regulation.


Quit politicizing schools and concentrate on teaching students.

The commenter explicitly says, "I am totally against this" and calls the policy a "transgender agenda" and "political agenda." They also urge reducing school funding and moving children to private school or homeschooling to avoid it, indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter clearly rejects the policy, calling it "horrific and completely upside-down." The phrase "Follow the science," except when it comes to DNA" signals opposition to the transgender student guidance on biological grounds.


The commenter explicitly says, "I fully support this guidance document" and repeats, "I support this guidance". They argue it will help LGBTQ+ students feel safe and reduce "discrimination and harassment," which clearly indicates approval of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says they would "vehemently oppose" the school's involvement and describes the policies as "overstepping" and "invasive." They conclude that the policies "do not protect" students, teachers, or parents and instead put rights at risk, indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy’s inclusion of transgender students, saying it will "confuse them even more" and objecting to saying it is OK to be "bisexual, gay or lesbian and now transgender." The final sentence urges that such matters be kept out of public education, indicating opposition to adoption of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do not approve of your proposed guidelines" and argues they are based on "radical theories" that would "eradicate all distinctions between male and female." This is a clear rejection of the regulation as proposed.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support the guidelines written to protect transgender students and keep them safe." This is a clear endorsement of adopting the regulation as proposed.


The commenter explicitly says, "DO NOT APPROVE THIS" and asks, "Please do not approve this sickening agenda," which clearly rejects the regulation. The phrase "sickening agenda" indicates opposition to the policy itself rather than a request for changes.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do not support" the policies and adds, "These policies harm all children," which clearly rejects adoption of the regulation. The statement is broad and negative toward the proposed guidance rather than requesting changes.


The commenter explicitly says, "I fully support this guidance." They also endorse the policy goal by stating that "Transgender youth need, want, and deserve to feel safe in their schools."


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, calling it "Transgender BS" and saying "Forcing transgender anything on the 99% heterosexual population is wrong!!!" This is a clear objection to adopting the regulation and frames it as coercive.


The commenter explicitly says "Totally Disagree" and calls the policy "completely ridiculous" and a "Terrible use of our tax dollars," which clearly indicates rejection of the regulation. There is no language suggesting support or a request for modification; the comment is purely oppositional.


The commenter explicitly says, "I absolutely DO NOT APPROVE" of the "new Virginia Department of Education Guidelines" and urges, "STOP with all this silliness." The rest of the comment argues against transgender identity as "a psychological fantasy," reinforcing clear opposition to the regulation.


The commenter says, "I am totally opposed to any public school policy" and objects to a policy that would affect their granddaughter's privacy. They specifically reject shared restroom/shower access with "biological males," indicating opposition to the proposed transgender student policy.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do not support any measures to remove/reduce traditional gender from our schools," which rejects the proposed transgender student policies. They also call the policies "indoctrinating the children" and argue schools should keep "traditional gender roles" and sex-segregated facilities, indicating opposition to the regulation as written.


The commenter explicitly says "Fully Support!" and repeatedly endorses the guidance as "needed, worthwhile, and valuable." They also state it "will save lives" and "Only rightful good will come for this," indicating clear approval of adoption.


The comment calls the policy a "Revolting perversion," which is a clear denunciation of the transgender student policies. It expresses strong rejection rather than support or neutral feedback.


The commenter clearly endorses the policy’s underlying goals, stating that "our priority should always be our students first" and that "Inequity shall not be tolerated nor perpetuated." The emphasis on student well-being, safety, and health indicates support for protections for transgender students rather than opposition.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do not support this legislation," which directly indicates opposition to the proposed regulation. The follow-up statement, "It will cause more harm than good," reinforces that they want it rejected rather than adopted.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support this policy" and calls it "a great first step". They also praise it for helping and respecting transgender students and creating "a more inclusive environment," which clearly indicates approval of adoption.


Oppose the new guidelines based on eradicating male/female distinctions

The commenter explicitly says they are "strongly opposed" to the guidelines and that "this policy needs to be tossed." They argue the policy would be "detrimental to the learning process" and create disruption, indicating clear rejection of adoption.


YOU'VE LOST YOUR SANITY / OUR KIDS GET DAMAGED

The commenter explicitly urges officials to "DROP THIS TOPIC" and "STOP WASTING OUR TAX DOLLARS," calling the policy "illogical," "inappropriate," and "confusing." They argue schools should not address transgender issues and that this would cause "irreparable damage" to children.


Support for bill regarding treatment of transgender students in Virginia Public Schools

The commenter explicitly says they "wholeheartedly support passage of this bill" and expresses gratitude for the policy. This is a clear endorsement of adopting the regulation.


Wholeheartedly disapprove of the policy superseding parental authority, religious rights, and...

The commenter explicitly says they "wholeheartedly disapprove" of the policy and repeatedly argues it "shouldn't" move forward, including "If this moves forward, and I hope it doesn't." They frame the proposal as threatening "parental authority," "religious rights," and student safety, and call for "exceptions" to the policy.


The commenter explicitly praises the policy as "a fantastic step forward" and asks to "continue to protect the rights of ALL people and all students." This is clear approval of the regulation and encouragement to keep it in place.


Opposition to  proposed transgender legislation

The commenter explicitly says, "I wholeheartedly disagree" and asks, "Please vote against it" and "Do not enact these rules." This is a clear rejection of the proposed transgender policies, with the stated concern that they would "break families apart" and make parenting harder.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do not agree with the proposed bill" and characterizes it as an attempt to "penalize those who do not agree" with the policy. The statement that "The science of biology supports male or female sex for every individual" and "Children are not the property of the state" further indicates rejection of the regulation's premise and goals.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy as a "dangerous usurpation of parents' right" and says it is "founded on identity politics, not science." The statement that it will "endanger the lives of children" indicates clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do NOT approve of these proposed guidelines" and urges "DO NOT APPROVE." They object to the policies as "radical theories" and say they "indoctrinate our school children," indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The comment calls the policy "Pure insanity" and frames it as "the wisdom of man, void of God," which clearly rejects the proposed transgender student policies. It offers no support or neutral inquiry, only condemnation of the regulation.


How far we have fallen!!!  Check the plumbing!!!

The commenter rejects the premise of the policy, saying there is "absolutely no evidence for the notion of transgender" and calling it "How foolish" for legislators to spend time on it. The "Check the plumbing!!!" remark and references to sex differences indicate opposition to the regulation's treatment of transgender students.


The commenter explicitly states, "I support this policy," which directly indicates approval of the regulation. The added phrase "as a parent in Fairfax county" provides context but does not change the clear supportive stance.


The commenter explicitly states, "I support this policy," which directly endorses adoption of the regulation. The additional line, "As a Fairfax County parent, I support this policy," reinforces the same position without adding conditions or objections.


The commenter explicitly urges action in favor of the policy: "All students deserve to be safe, protected, and to learn in a supportive environment" and says Virginia should be "leading the way" on "human rights" and "science." The criticism of those who would create "unsafe places for trans students" indicates support for the regulation’s protections for transgender students.


Educate / Don't Indoctrinate and Confuse!

The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, saying "Stop!" and "THROW THIS FOOLISH POLICY IN THE TRASH." They argue it is "inappropriate" and should not be adopted because it allegedly confuses students and threatens privacy and safety.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support the Model Policy" and thanks the Department "for working to create a safe and supportive environment for all students." This is a clear endorsement of adopting the regulation.


The commenter says, "I am totally opposed to this being proposed for Virginia schools," which is a direct rejection of the regulation. They also argue it should be left to "the parents" and that it takes away "our parental rights," indicating they want the policy rejected rather than adopted.


The commenter explicitly endorses the guidance as a "huge leap forward" and says "YES" in the title. They praise the policies for protecting students' "basic human rights" and state they are "proud" of Virginia public schools for supporting "ALL of our students."


The commenter explicitly says, "Wonderful. In full support" and thanks the drafters for "supporting trans youth." They also express approval of the policy’s purpose, saying it "only improves lives" and wishing it had existed when they were in school.


I support the proposed transgender policy

The commenter explicitly says, "I fully support the model transgender policy," which directly endorses adoption of the regulation. The rest of the comment criticizes opponents, reinforcing a pro-policy position.


I oppose this kind of rule, it is against Natural Law. It es the climax of corruption and perversion

The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose this kind of rule" and argues it is "against Natural Law and Morals." They also urge that it not be approved, saying it would "destroy our Virginia and the U.S.A." and that there is "no chance it will be law ever."


Transgender in Schools and Public Spaces

The commenter repeatedly argues against accommodating transgender students, asking why schools should "change due to a few's perspective" and framing such policies as "confusing" and potentially harmful. They also question whether children should be accommodated at all, implying the regulation should not be adopted.


Let parents decide what is best for kids

The commenter argues that "Sex and physiology related topics is not appropriate to be taught in schools" and that "Parents and guardians are the right folks" to handle these issues, which rejects the regulation’s school-based guidance. They also say "kids should not be taught/deciding on these topics outside the nuclear family," indicating opposition to the policy framework.


The commenter explicitly calls the policies "UNACCEPTABLE & Dangerous" and says they "completely unacceptable," indicating clear opposition. They argue the policies "violates parental rights" and "jeopardize safety," and object to school involvement in decisions about children.


In support of VDOE to support transgender youth

The commenter explicitly says, "I support the dissemination of these tools to all schools in Virginia" and thanks those who "support transgender youth." The comment praises the guidelines as "evidence-based" and intended to reduce discrimination and harassment, indicating clear approval of the regulation.


VA school policies that support transgender students

The commenter explicitly states, "Absolutely, 100% support for these students!" This is a clear endorsement of the proposed transgender student policies.


The comment does not clearly endorse or reject the transgender student policies; it only says, "Let the people decide." This is a procedural request for a referendum rather than a substantive position on adoption of the regulation.


A message from a trans adult in the community - VOTE YES!

The commenter explicitly says "VOTE YES!" and repeatedly urges support for the guidance, stating it is important to "support our trans kids" and that "This guidance will hopefully be the start to a better learning environment." The comment also argues against objections to the policy, indicating clear approval of adoption.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose!!!" and repeatedly argues against the policy, calling it "a complete loss of rights and trust" and "not the answer at all." They object to not notifying parents and say "The school is not the place to enforce such a policy," indicating rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support adoption of the proposed transgender guidelines for schools." This is a clear endorsement of the regulation as proposed.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support these guidelines" and describes them as "reasonable." They also state the policies will "lead to more equitable treatment of all students," indicating approval of adoption.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy’s premise, stating "There are only 2 genders" and calling anything else "a myth" and "lies to our children." They also argue for replacing it with "Christian values," which indicates opposition to adopting the transgender student policies.


The commenter explicitly says "SUPPORT AND PROTECT TRANS STUDENTS" and repeatedly urges that "School policy needs to protect them." They argue the regulation should ensure safety, dignity, rights, and privacy for trans students, which is clear support for adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support this measure!" and describes it as "a huge step forward." They also endorse its goals of safety, mental health, and respectful self-expression for trans, cis, and questioning students.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly support" and adds "We must protect our trans students," which clearly endorses adoption of the regulation. There is no indication of opposition or neutrality.


The comment explicitly says "Support" and repeats "support!!!!!," which clearly indicates approval of the proposed regulation. There is no language suggesting opposition or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support the guidance." They also endorse the policy goal by stating, "All children deserve to be protected and feel safe in school," which aligns with adoption of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "This would be a great opportunity and progressive step" and frames the policy as "including LGBTQ communities n schools," which clearly endorses adoption. There is no opposing language or request to weaken the regulation.


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


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Support!" and states that "Trans students deserve to be able learn in a safe and nondiscrimanatory environment!" This clearly endorses adoption of the proposed policies.


The commenter explicitly says "protect trans rights" and the title "Protect TRANS STUDENTS" clearly endorses the regulation’s purpose. The phrase "they deserve the world" is affirming and supportive rather than critical.


The commenter says, "This is exactly why we need school choice," referring to the proposed transgender student policies as the reason to redirect funding away from public schools. By advocating to "divide up the Education budget per kid and send that money to the school of the parents choice," the comment clearly signals opposition to the regulation and the public-school framework it would apply to.


Supporting Trans Students Keeps Students Safe

The commenter explicitly urges officials to "support them and keep them safe" and says schools should "accept trans and nonbinary students for who they are." The comment frames the policy as necessary to protect vulnerable youth and improve their well-being, which clearly supports adoption of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY SUPPORT!" and argues that "all people are accepted and treated as equal," calling for "inclusivity." This clearly endorses the proposed transgender student policies.


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


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Oppose" and argues the policy "opens the doors for predators to target our children," which is a clear rejection of the regulation. The comment does not request changes; it seeks to block adoption based on safety fears.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support this proposal" and frames it as protecting transgender and non-binary children from discrimination. They also endorse the policy basis, stating it should be based on "research and science" and that these students "deserve to be treated fairly and with dignity."


The commenter explicitly says, "Please support this policy" and repeatedly argues to "get a policy in place" to help transgender students. They frame the regulation as necessary to provide support, reduce bullying, and create consistent standards across jurisdictions.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY SUPPORT!!!!!" and argues that "Trans rights are human rights" and transgender people "DESERVES FAIR TREATMENT." The comment urges the policy to "give them the support they need and deserve," indicating clear approval of the regulation.


The comment explicitly states "SUPPORT" and repeats "Support$$," indicating clear approval of the proposed regulation. No contrary language or qualifications are present.


Strongly Support!!! Protect trans students!

The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Support!!!" and urges to "Protect trans students!" This clearly endorses the proposed policies and their goal of making trans students feel safe in schools.


The commenter explicitly states, "I support the guidance!!" which directly endorses the proposed regulation. The title also says "SUPPORT," reinforcing the same position.


The commenter rejects the policy outright, saying it is "not a third option" and that it is "wrong" to "force these opinions on people." They also argue it will "totally destroy female girl sports," indicating opposition to the regulation's treatment of transgender students.


The commenter explicitly says, "I am writing in support of the Model Policies on the Treatment of Transgender Students" and repeatedly endorses equal treatment and acceptance. They also argue that students should not be "bullied, harassed, or discriminated against" and conclude that all students should be treated equally and allowed to thrive.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose!" and repeatedly urges, "Please don’t allow this to happen!!" They argue against transgender recognition in schools, calling it a "psychological problem" and warning of harmful consequences if the policy is adopted.


The commenter clearly rejects the policy, opening with "Ansolutely Not" and criticizing it as coercive: "threaten and cajole us to either conform or face threats of removal." They also argue it imposes broad burdens on others for a small group, saying the policy would "severely impact" everyone.


The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose this absolute insanity!!!!" which clearly rejects the proposed regulation. The title "OPPOSE!!!!!!!" reinforces that they want it rejected.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Support!" and urges that trans people "Must protect," which clearly endorses adoption of the policy. The body is affirming of transgender people and does not express any opposition or reservations.


The commenter explicitly says "Vehemently Oppose" and "I strongly object to this measure." They also argue it is "morally and ethically wrong" and an "infringement upon our religious beliefs," indicating clear rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly support" and argues that schools should "do everything possible to protect the rights of students who are transgender, gender nonconforming, nonbinary, etc." This clearly endorses adoption of the regulation's protections for transgender students.


The commenter explicitly says "Oppose!!" and calls the policy "extremely dangerous," indicating clear rejection of the regulation. The statement that "This is Orwellian" further shows disapproval of the proposed transgender student policies.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support the policies to support trans students." They also reinforce approval by stating that the policies have "significant positive impacts" for trans students and all students.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly support" and urges action to "protect our trans students," which clearly endorses adoption of the regulation. The brief exclamation "C'mon now!" reinforces approval rather than criticism.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY SUPPORT" and adds "Trans rights = human rights," which clearly endorses the regulation’s purpose and protections for transgender students. There is no language indicating opposition or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly support!" and asks to "support the protection of trans lives." They also argue against barriers like "Surgery requirements," indicating approval of the regulation with concern for transgender rights and access.


transgender     u are either a woman or a man  no man claimed woman in womans bathroom

The commenter rejects the policy’s treatment of transgender students, stating "u are either woman or man" and that "no man claiming to be a woman should be allowed in a womans bathroom." The phrase "this is sick" shows clear opposition to the regulation’s protections and bathroom access provisions.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Opposed" and argues the policy "opposes God" and "takes parenting out of the hands of the parents." They also say it "creates more problems than it solves," indicating rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I stongly support the well-researched and evidence based proposal." They also endorse the policy’s purpose, saying it would "protect this very vulnerable group of students" and create a "safe and inclusive learning environment."


The commenter explicitly titles the submission "Strongly Support" and criticizes people who would oppose the policy, saying "Imagine being opposed to this, I can't." The final sentence, "Don't have kids if wont accept who they are," clearly endorses acceptance of transgender students and the regulation's purpose.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly support" and states they are "strongly in support of supporting and protecting trans students’ rights." This clearly endorses adoption of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Support!" and argues that students should be able to express their gender identity "in a safe environment." They also state that "Transgender children deserve to be protected," which clearly endorses the regulation's purpose.


The commenter explicitly says, "I am strongly opposed to this" and argues against transgender students using bathrooms or dressing with others, indicating rejection of the policy. The language calling it "tyrannical," "child abuse," and saying it "destroys families" reinforces a clear oppositional stance.


A mother, a nurse, and a researcher = OPPOSE

The commenter explicitly labels the submission "OPPOSE" and argues against the policy by rejecting "changes without facts to support it." They also criticize "affirming treatment" and say "There is no evidence this treatment is effective," indicating opposition to the regulation’s transgender-student guidance.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY SUPPORT" and asks to "do everything in your power to protect and support transgender students and the entire LGBT+ student community." They also oppose any weaker approach, calling anything less "a betrayal of our students' human rights."


The commenter explicitly says, "I fully support this legislation" and "urge you to pass it." They also frame the policy as beneficial, stating it will "save lives," which clearly indicates approval of adoption.


Nudists don't force Naturalism on others!!! dont force LGBTQ on our Kids!!

The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Oppose!" and objects to the policy with "dont force LGBTQ on our Kids!!" This indicates rejection of the proposed transgender student policies rather than support or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose" the draft policies and ends with "Please DO NOT ratify these policies!" They argue the policies threaten girls' privacy and safety, exclude parents, and involve schools in matters they believe schools should not handle.


The commenter explicitly states, "I support this," which directly indicates approval of the proposed regulation. The title also says "Support," reinforcing the same position.


VDOE Model Policy for Treatment of Transgender Students in Virginia Schools.

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support the adoption of this Model Policy" and frames it as the "only moral choice." This is a clear endorsement of adopting the regulation as proposed.


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


Support trans, non-binary and gender non-conforming students

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support the model policy for trans and non-binary students." They also endorse the policy’s purpose by stating that "All students deserve a safe and supportive school environment."


The commenter explicitly labels the submission "STRONG SUPPORT" and says the policy is "an important step in creating a safe environment for all VA students". The phrase "help foster inclusiveness" further indicates approval of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Support" and "very strongly support this policy recommendation." They also praise the policy as providing "much needed guidance" and helping schools create a "safe and inclusive learning environment."


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose" the policy and threatens to withdraw their children if it passes, which clearly indicates rejection of the regulation. There is no supporting or neutral language in the comment.


The commenter explicitly titles the comment "Strongly Support" and repeatedly endorses the policy’s goals, saying they want kids to be "supported and defended" and to have access to education "no matter what they look like or identify as." They also argue against discrimination and for student safety and inclusion, which aligns with adopting the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Support" and adds that "Supporting children being themselves should be a no-brainer," which clearly endorses the regulation. There is no indication of opposition or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support this proposal" and argues it would "protect this already vulnerable group of students" and create a "safe and inclusive learning environment." The final aside is also supportive of the policy's goals, despite being dismissive of opponents.


The commenter explicitly says, "I hope most of this policy will be struck down," and argues that it is "dangerous to experiment on people." They also oppose key elements of the regulation, including bathroom access, sports participation, and limiting parental involvement.


The commenter explicitly calls the policy "the most ridiculous thing" and says "If this is passed, public schools will lose a ton of employees and students," indicating clear opposition. They also argue it will make children unsafe and propose an alternative, narrower bathroom arrangement instead of the policy as written.


The commenter explicitly endorses protecting transgender students and says they should be "uplifted, not alienated" by school administrators. The comment supports allowing students to "express their gender" authentically and argues against harassment, indicating approval of the proposed policies.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy with "Absolutely NOT!!" and argues that "Males have absolutely no place in Female sports or any other female organisations," indicating opposition to transgender-inclusive school policies. The statement also says "The same holds true for Females," reinforcing a rejection of the proposed guidance rather than support or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY SUPPORT!" and adds "Trans rights are a human right!" indicating clear approval of the proposed transgender student policies. There is no language suggesting opposition or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly states, "I support the guidance," which directly endorses adoption of the regulation. They also give a reason for approval, saying children "deserve a safe and inclusive school community."


OPPOSE- parents should maintain authority on these critical issues

The commenter explicitly says "Oppose these guidelines" and argues that "parents have authority" rather than the government. They also reject mixed-sex access to bathrooms and locker rooms, calling it "non-negotiable" and describing the policy as "irresponsible" and "dangerous."


Strongly oppose transgender school policy

The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose the requirements being considered" and calls the policies harmful because they "provide no exceptions for faith based beliefs" and "block parents access". They argue the policy "take[s] away the rights of the majority," indicating rejection of the regulation as written.


The commenter explicitly says, "Protect trans people" and condemns the current situation as "this awful oppression," which indicates support for the regulation’s protective intent. The phrase "Shame on you for creating this hostile environment" suggests they want stronger protections rather than rejection of the policy.


The commenter clearly rejects the policy, calling it "sick," "disgusting," and saying that "allowing it is disgusting." They also argue that "Teaching this or allowing this to proceed borders on child abuse," which indicates strong opposition to adoption of the transgender student policies.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support this" and endorses the policy for "our LGBTQ+ kids." The phrase "It should be a no brainer" reinforces clear approval of adoption.


The comment explicitly says "Support trans rights!!" and is clearly endorsing the regulation’s purpose of protecting transgender students. There is no language opposing or questioning the policy.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly support" and adds that "Trans kids need support and recognition," which clearly endorses the regulation. The final sentence, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," reinforces approval of the policy's protective intent.


The commenter explicitly says, "This proposed rule will make Virginia schools a better place to learn" and argues that schools should be safe and inclusive for transgender and nonbinary students. The comment repeatedly endorses the policy’s goals of preventing bullying, discrimination, and improving access to bathrooms and locker rooms.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY SUPPORT" and adds "Trans rights are human rights," which clearly endorses the proposed transgender student policies. There is no indication of opposition or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly states, "I strongly support," which directly indicates approval of the proposed regulation. No contrary language or qualifications are included.


opposed to the proposed transgender bill for VA schools

The commenter explicitly says the proposals are "very detrimental" and asks, "Please do not enact these changes in the public schools." They also argue the policy would conflict with religious beliefs, harm family structure, and increase risk in restrooms/locker rooms, all indicating opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly SUPPORT" and adds "Trans rights are human rights!" indicating clear approval of the proposed policies. There is no qualifying language or criticism of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly states "Strongly support," which directly endorses adoption of the regulation. No contrary language or qualifications are included.


The comment explicitly says "Support amendment," which indicates approval of the regulation with changes. It does not raise objections or request rejection, so the stance is supportive rather than opposing or neutral.


The commenter explicitly urges officials to "do everything and anything you can" to ensure transgender and gender non-conforming students "feel safe and cared for at school," which aligns with adopting the policy. The statement "trans rights are human rights" is a clear endorsement of protections for transgender students.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support this guidance" and frames it as necessary "to protect trans and non-binary youth." They also state that schools should be places where "all children can be safe," indicating approval of the regulation's purpose and adoption.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly support" and argues that "we should respect how others choose to live without inhibiting them," which clearly endorses the policy. The statement "Trans people are people" is also affirming of the regulation's purpose.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY SUPPORT TRANS RIGHTS" and urges that "trans youth" be "accepted and be who they want to be," which clearly endorses the regulation's purpose. There is no language opposing or questioning the policy.


Transgender Policy in Virginia Public Schools

The commenter explicitly states, "We are strongly opposed to this proposed policy change," which directly rejects adoption of the regulation. No supporting reasons or qualifications are provided, but the opposition is unambiguous.


The commenter begins with "Strongly disagree" and argues against the policy allowing transgender students access to facilities aligned with their gender identity. They say they would "never want my kids in the same bathroom or locker room" and claim the policy is "taking away our kids rights," indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose this," which directly rejects the proposed regulation. The opening phrase, "These children need our love," does not change the overall position and appears to be a preface to opposition.


The commenter explicitly states, "I support the policy," which directly endorses adoption of the regulation. There is no qualifying language suggesting opposition or neutrality.


The comment explicitly rejects the regulation with "HELL No!!!!!!!" and calls it "the most ridiculous thing ever!!!" This is a clear expression of opposition to the proposed policies.


The comment explicitly says "Support" and adds "I believe we must make systemic change," which indicates approval of the proposed policies. There is no language opposing or questioning the regulation.


Strongly Support--Trans Rights are Human Rights

The commenter explicitly says, "I stand in full support of legislation to protect the health and well being of Transgender youth in Virginia schools." They also urge that "policies must be implemented in schools" so all students can "grow and thrive," which clearly endorses adoption of the regulation.


The comment only says "STRONGLY DISAGREE!!" without stating what part of the regulation it objects to or whether it is opposing adoption of the policy itself. Because there is no substantive explanation, it is too vague to confidently classify as support or oppose.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose" and argues the policy is "taking away safe spaces for girls," which indicates rejection of the regulation. Although they mention protecting children's rights and compassion, the overall message is against adoption of the transgender student policies.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Support" and states the regulations "are wonderful and should already be in place." They also argue that school should be "a safe zone" and that the policy will "lower bullying and suicidal rates," indicating clear approval of adoption.


Support but also increase mental health accessibility

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support this," which clearly endorses the proposed regulation. The additional point about "increasing accessibility to mental health resources" is a related policy suggestion, not a rejection or weakening of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "Support!" and "Totally support!", which clearly indicates approval of the proposed regulation. There is no qualifying language or criticism suggesting any opposition.


I guess this preps little children for Pedo State Representatives.

The commenter uses explicitly hostile language about the policy, saying it "preps little children" and accusing it of grooming and pedophilia. This is a clear rejection of the proposed transgender student policies rather than a request for changes.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support the identification of transgender students as their chosen gender" and argues that people should be allowed to do so. The rest of the comment condemns opposition and frames the policy as preventing "hate," indicating clear support for the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "Disagree" and argues the policies "go far beyond the path the General Assembly prescribed." They also state that schools should not accommodate these policies and that they "infringe upon parents' rights and duties," indicating opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says "Vote NO!" and repeatedly urges rejection: "I do not want" these guidelines and "Stop this madness now!" They argue the policies are "unworkable" and object to restroom/locker room access and student privacy provisions.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose this!" and repeats "I oppose them!" They argue the policies let schools and government replace parents and allow "KIDS to make these adult like decisions," indicating rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "i absolutely support this" and adds support for "any piece of legislation that will support transgender teens and people." The closing "Don’t drop the ball" reinforces approval of the regulation rather than opposition or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, calling it "ABSOLUTELY SICKENING" and asserting that "This country was founded for men and women," which signals opposition to transgender-inclusive guidance. The title "Trans people deserve death, not support" is also a clear denunciation of the regulation's subject matter.


Oppose the current policies in this proposal

The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose the detailed proposal" and "I will never support policy" that "intentionally eliminates the parent." They also ask for alternatives and exemptions, stating parents should receive "FULL disclosure" and options for those who oppose it on religious grounds.


Transgender should not be pushed in our schools.

The commenter explicitly says, "I do not support this in any way shape or form," which clearly rejects the proposed policies. They also object to transgender inclusion in schools and specifically say, "Trans don't need to be in women sports either," indicating opposition to the regulation's purpose and provisions.


Support saves lives: put the health and safety of our students first

The commenter explicitly urges approval of the policy, saying "Support saves lives" and that schools should "putting the health and safety of our children first." They argue that "validating a student's gender identity" is beneficial, which aligns with endorsing the proposed transgender student policies.


The commenter explicitly frames the proposal as harmful, saying it "will be so confusing for children" and "basically creates chaos in our schools." They also argue it makes teaching harder by adding "more pressure on the teacher," which indicates opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly titles the submission "Oppose" and says the policy is "a major overstep of the role of public entity." They object to "giving a public entity the right to usurp parental rights" and argue these issues should be handled by families without school interference.


The commenter says, "I strongly oppose any idea" and "THIS IS NOT THE WAY," indicating clear rejection of the proposed policies. They also object to "government to force any type of rule," asking to "come up with another solution" instead of adopting this regulation.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, saying "Absolutely Not," "this is unacceptable," and "in no way should be allowed." They repeatedly argue that it should be "left to the parents," call the proposal "unconstitutional," and say "LEAVE IT TO THE PARENTS."


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support this" and argues that "Protecting these individuals hurts no one." The remainder of the comment reinforces approval by emphasizing the need to protect transgender students from harm.


Do Not Support - You are disregarding women's rights

The commenter explicitly says, "I wholeheartedly vote NO on this proposal" and repeatedly argues the policy would "disregard women's rights" and "silence and discriminate against women." They also urge the state to "Find a better solution" rather than adopt this policy, indicating clear opposition.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do not support this bill," which directly indicates opposition to adoption. They also argue it "takes the rights away from parents" and object to punishment for pronoun mistakes, showing they want the policy rejected or substantially weakened.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY OPPOSE" and identifies the regulation as "undermining of parental authority," which clearly indicates rejection of the proposed policy. There is no request for modification or neutral input, only opposition.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY SUPPORT!" and "Wholeheartedly support!" They also endorse the policy goals by stating "Trans rights are human rights" and that every student deserves a "compassionate and inclusive setting" where they are safe.


The commenter explicitly says "SUPPORT TRANS KIDS" and "Trans rights are human rights," which clearly endorses the regulation’s protections for transgender students. The statement that "No child should be discriminated against" aligns with adopting the policy.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do not support this bill" and argues that transgender students should use the "correct designated restroom," indicating rejection of the proposed policies. The comment also warns that adopting it would lead to "more sexual assault in our schools" and students being pulled from school, reinforcing opposition.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose the legislation/amendment regarding transgender policies." They also argue it is "not the role of our government to mandate such requirements" and call the policy "detrimental to society in general," indicating clear rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support House Bill 145 and Senate Bill 16" and calls the actions in the bill "necessary." They also describe the proposal as "a first step towards creating an equitable learning space" and hope it becomes "groundwork for further legislation," indicating clear support for adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support the guidance" and clarifies the reason: "to protect trans students." This is a clear endorsement of the proposed regulation as written.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support the guidance" and praises it for "improving the lives of trans and non-binary kids in schools." This is a clear endorsement of adopting the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support these policies," which directly endorses adoption. They also praise "supportive measures and inclusive alterations" and frame them as beneficial for transgender and LGBTQIA+ students.


The commenter explicitly states, "I wholeheartedly support these guidelines," which directly endorses adoption of the regulation. There is no qualifying language or criticism suggesting opposition or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly says "100% support" and asks to "support the guidance for protecting LGBTQ+ and trans youth." They also state that "The safety and well being of these young people depends on steps like this happening," which clearly endorses adoption of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do not support all the parts of this legislation" and "cannot support it as a whole," which indicates rejection of the regulation in its current form. Although they do not specify which provisions they object to, the overall position is clearly opposed.


The commenter explicitly says "Support trans kids" and argues that transgender students have an "equal right to safe and harassment-free public education." They also say it is "imperative" that school boards receive this guidance, which clearly endorses adoption of the policy.


Supporting all students mean supporting transgender students

The commenter explicitly endorses the policy, saying "We need to do everything we can to protect and support our transgender students" and calling "Transgender affirming policies" "a necessary part" of school support. The comment argues for adoption based on safety and affirmation concerns rather than raising objections or questions.


Protect Children Struggling with Mental Health Issues by Opposing This

The commenter explicitly says, "I do not want the state to decide when my child learns about this" and argues to "Let parents be parents," which rejects the proposed policies. They also frame the guidance as harmful by saying treating transgender students as "completely normal only hurts them" and ask to "oppose this."


Model Policies for the Treatment of Transgender Students in Public Elementary and Secondary schools

The commenter explicitly says, "I am totally against the regulations you want to implement" and objects to specific provisions such as bathroom/locker room access and transgender-related policies. They also argue the rules "usurp parental authority" and conflict with "religious faith" and "basic biology," indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly disagree with this proposal" and repeats that "this proposal is not ok." They argue it "cuts the parents out," "silences families," and raises concerns about bathrooms and changing rooms, indicating clear opposition to adoption of the policy.


The commenter explicitly states, "I support this policy," which directly indicates approval of the regulation. The title also says "SUPPORT," reinforcing the same position.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose!" and repeats, "I oppose the proposed VDOE transgender policies." They argue the policies will "add to the confusion and stress" and criticize them as "another layer of correctness," indicating rejection of adoption.


I fully support the proposed protections for trans and non-binary students.

The commenter explicitly says, "I fully support the proposed protections for trans and non-binary students" and repeatedly urges, "Please, please, please, pass these proposed protections." The body consistently endorses the regulation’s goals of nondiscrimination, privacy, bathroom access, and gender-affirming treatment for transgender students.


The commenter explicitly endorses the policy’s purpose with the phrases "trans rights are human rights" and "Protect trans kids," which clearly supports adoption of the transgender student protections. There is no language opposing or questioning the regulation.


Strongly oppose! Work on your bullying policies.

The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose!" and argues against the policy on bathroom-access grounds. They frame the regulation as creating a safety risk, asking "what if a random boy says he classifies as a girl and goes into the girls bathroom" and concluding that children would have to worry about it.


The commenter explicitly says, "Please vote against this," and argues the policies "undermin[e]" the family and "discriminat[e] against the religious values" they live by. The comment clearly rejects the proposed transgender policies rather than supporting them with changes.


The commenter explicitly says "Support Trans Youth" and states that "having everyone on the same page to support students is important," which clearly endorses the regulation’s purpose. The comment expresses approval of unified support for LGBTQUIA+ students rather than criticism or opposition.


The commenter explicitly says, "I fully support the proposed measures" and describes them as having "a tangible, positive impact on children's lives." The comment is clearly in favor of adoption, while criticizing opposing comments as harmful.


The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose!!" and argues the proposal is "absurd" and "goes against all legal rights" and "freedom of speech." They also reject transgender students' restroom access, stating students and faculty should use their "birth given gender restrooms," which indicates opposition to the regulation's protections and accommodations.


The commenter explicitly says "100% support . Vote yes!" and "Protect Trans kids rights!" which clearly endorses adoption of the regulation. The final line, "And let them pee in peace!" further supports transgender students' access and privacy protections.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose even the thought of this," which clearly rejects the proposed transgender student policy. The follow-up question, "How can this even be thought about being implemented," reinforces opposition rather than offering a neutral inquiry.


STRONGLY AGREE AND SUPPORT, protecting trans kids

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support this!" and frames the policy as "protecting trans kids." They also argue it is "being open to every child" and not "forcing legislation," which clearly endorses adoption of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly endorses the policy’s purpose, saying they are fighting for "BASIC protection and rights for a child" and that "ALL CHILDREN deserve to feel safe and supported in their school." This clearly supports adoption of the regulation as a means of protecting transgender students and other children.


The commenter explicitly says "We are strongly opposed" and frames the policies as harmful, calling them "nonsense" and saying their children will not attend public schools if enacted. They also object that the bills "violate the rights of Christian families" and "take parental control," indicating rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "Support trans youth at all costs" three times and frames it as a duty to "protect children." This is a clear endorsement of the proposed transgender student policies.


The commenter explicitly says "we support all children" and identifies transgender children as included, then urges "moving forward" with the policy. They argue that failing to adopt it would subject transgender kids to "discrimination and stigma," which clearly supports approval of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support this guidance" and explains that schools should be a place where "everyone feels safe" and "comfortable and welcoming." This is clear approval of the proposed policies.


Proudly Support this legislation! Trans Kids Need Our Support!

The commenter explicitly says, "Please support this legislation" and frames it as needed to "provide resources to Trans Kids in our schools." This is a clear endorsement of adopting the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY SUPPORT" and repeatedly urges approval, stating that "Trans and nonbinary youth deserve support" and that it is "imperative to support our children." The comment argues the policy would protect youth from ostracization and harm.


The commenter explicitly says "Completely support" and argues that "this needs to pass." They also endorse the policy’s purpose of "Educating our children to be accepting of all people, regardless of gender identity" and conclude with "Trans rights are human rights."


The commenter explicitly says "In strong support" and argues that schools should "support and affirm" transgender students. The statement that this is "important for their survival" clearly endorses adopting the regulation's protections for transgender children.


The commenter explicitly says, "Very much in support!" and describes the policy as "wonderful progress." They also state it will be "very beneficial" to the "health, safety, and general well being" of transgender individuals, indicating clear approval of adoption.


The commenter explicitly endorses the policy, saying "We need to do everything we can to protect and support our transgender students" and calling "Transgender affirming policies" a "necessary part" of school protection. The title, "All students include trans students!", also signals clear approval of the regulation's purpose.


The commenter explicitly says, "I feel this is a step in the right direction" and expresses hope that the policy will "help strengthen these students' self worth." The comment supports LGBTQ+ youth and endorses adult support in schools, indicating approval of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "Support!" and states that "All students including trans and non-binary students should be supported and protected in Virginia schools," which clearly endorses the regulation's purpose. There is no indication of opposition or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly says "we fully support him" and adds that "no kid should feel ashamed for how they identify," which clearly endorses the regulation’s protections for transgender students. The final sentence, "we should be teaching kids compassion, not judgement," further supports adoption of the policy.


The commenter explicitly says, "Absolutely oppose all of this!!!" and repeatedly rejects the policy as "unacceptable" and "ridiculous." They argue it threatens their children's privacy and safety in bathrooms/changing rooms and propose separate individual-use restrooms instead.


STRONGLY SUPPORT. Trans individuals are still people and deserve to be treated w basic human respect

The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY SUPPORT" and argues that "Trans individuals are still people" who "deserve to be treated with respect." They also state that "Trans children deserve to be protected," which clearly endorses the regulation's purpose.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support this legislation" and frames it as necessary for "protections for trans people" and "civil rights." This is a clear endorsement of adopting the policy.


The commenter explicitly states, "I support transgender youth," which clearly endorses the policy’s purpose of protecting and accommodating transgender students. No opposing or qualifying language is present.


STRONGLY oppose. This is completely insane to push this kind of abuse

The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY oppose" and "Please do NOT pass this," which clearly rejects the regulation. They also describe it as "incredibly harmful to our children," indicating opposition to adoption.


Trans rights are human rights! Protect trans youth!

The commenter explicitly urges adoption of protections for transgender students, saying "Trans rights are human rights!" and asking to "Protect trans youth!" They also state that withholding protections is "basic discrimination," which clearly supports the regulation's purpose.


The commenter explicitly rejects the proposal with "Absolutely NOT" and says "I do not believe it is the right of the government to mandate" these policies. They also argue it would "discriminate against all other children" and should not pass, indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The comment is explicitly titled "Support" and the body quotes a well-known justice-oriented phrase, indicating approval of the proposed policies. There is no language opposing or questioning the regulation.


The commenter explicitly titles the post "Oppose Transgender guidelines" and says the policies "totally goes against my religious beliefs." They also argue that schools are "not the place" for this issue and that the policies would make them "not want to teach anymore," indicating rejection of the regulation.


Reject the Model Policies for treatment of Transgender students

The commenter explicitly says, "Oppose" and asks to "Reject the Model Policies," which clearly indicates opposition to adoption. The stated reason is that they "undermine rights of parents and families," showing a substantive objection to the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support the protection and safety of trans children," which clearly endorses the regulation's purpose. The title, "Support! Protect Trans Kids!," reinforces approval rather than criticism or neutrality.


Teacher in proud support of our trans students

The commenter explicitly says they are in "proud support of trans and gender non-conforming, gender-exploring students" and argues that schools should "normalize[] the acceptance of trans youth." They also state that students have a right to feel safe and that the policy would help "uplift the trans and queer community," indicating clear support for the regulation.


The comment explicitly says "Strongly oppose" and provides no qualifying language suggesting support or neutrality. This is a clear rejection of the proposed regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I am 100% in support of the guidelines proposed to protect Trans students" and argues they "deserve safety just as much as cisgender students." The rest of the comment reinforces approval of the proposed policy as a step toward "equitable education for ALL."


The commenter explicitly says, "i support the model policy protecting transgender students!" This directly endorses adoption of the regulation and its purpose.


The commenter explicitly urges officials to "pass this in support of our trans youth" and argues that "Trans youth deserve the same rights, protections" as others. The comment is clearly advocating adoption of the proposed policies, not rejection or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly says, "Strongly support this!" and urges the policy to "Protect trans kids!" This is a clear endorsement of adopting the regulation to improve treatment and protection for transgender students.


The commenter explicitly says, "I am against these transgender policies being brought into our schools" and asks, "Why should our schools try to make decisions for them?" They also state that if the bill is approved, their children will no longer attend public school, indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I fully support this proposal" and opens with "Wholeheartedly support." They also argue the policy will create a "safe, supportive environment" and be "gender affirming," indicating clear approval of adoption.


The commenter explicitly says "what is being proposed is WRONG" and urges officials to "Do your homework" before more children are "harmed and sterilized," which clearly rejects the regulation. The comment argues against affirming transgender treatment for youth and warns against a "life-long medical path."


The commenter explicitly says, "I support this guidance" and endorses the policy as creating a school environment where "everyone feels safe." The closing statement, "Trans rights are human rights!" further confirms approval of the regulation's purpose and direction.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY SUPPORT" and adds that "Everyone deserves the respect this guidance looks to provide," which clearly endorses adoption of the regulation. There is no indication of opposition or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Opposed!!!!" and objects to the policy as "nonsense." They also reject being told what to do and say they will remove their child from public school, indicating clear opposition to adoption of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "Vote NO!" and describes the policy as "dangerous" and "over stepping so many boundaries," indicating clear rejection of the regulation. They also object to "taking away parental guidance" and claim it would "put[] all other children at risk," which shows opposition rather than a request for changes.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support the guidance" and asks to "Protect our youth and their rights," which clearly endorses adoption of the regulation. There is no opposing language or substantive criticism.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Oppose" and asks officials to "withdraw and do NOT re-introduce these terrible bills." They also argue the policies violate "the rights of Christian families" and remove "parental control and rights," indicating clear rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly labels the submission "Strongly Support" and urges officials to "allow LGBT youth to thrive." They argue the policy could be "lifesaving" and say there is "no reason to oppose this," which clearly endorses adoption.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY SUPPORT" and argues the policies are "long overdue." They also state that "Legislation must be in place so that ALL children can be safe in schools," which clearly endorses adoption of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly urges action to "support the most vulnerable" and says "All children deserve to feel safe and protected," which clearly endorses the regulation’s protective aims for transgender students. The title "Support Trans Students!!" reinforces approval rather than criticism or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly labels the submission "Strong Opposition" and argues that "there is no science that supports affirming a trans identity," urging readers to reject the approach. The comment cites detransition and medical-harm concerns to oppose the policy's affirming framework.


The comment explicitly says, "Trans rights are human rights!" and repeats "Trans rights are human rights," which clearly endorses protections for transgender students. It offers no criticism or conditions, indicating support for the proposed policies.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose the transgender legislation in many many ways" and argues against allowing the policy in public schools. They also say they would "legally fight this all the way to the Supreme Court," which clearly indicates rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support trans students!" which directly endorses the policy’s purpose of protecting transgender students. The remark about other comments being "deeply disturbing" reinforces approval of the regulation rather than opposition.


The comment explicitly says "Support" in both the title and body, indicating clear approval of the proposed regulation. No contrary language or qualifications are present.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, saying "This messing with gender is NUTS!" and urging that "Schools and agencies must stay out of it!" They frame it as "solely a family issue," which indicates opposition to the regulation's involvement in transgender student treatment.


The commenter explicitly says, "I fully support the Model Policies" and frames the policies as necessary for fairness and safety. They also endorse the goal of protecting transgender and non-binary students from discrimination, indicating clear approval of adoption.