The commenter explicitly says "Endorse Providing Guidance to Educators" and argues that "adult guidance is needed" and that adults "deserve good information" to support all students. The comment supports the regulation’s purpose of providing guidance for transgender and non-transgender children alike.


The commenter explicitly says, "I STRONGLY oppose this Bill!" and repeatedly calls it "horrific," asking that the proposal be removed and its sponsors "removed from office." The body argues against transgender affirmation for children and frames the policy as harmful to kids and parents.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose the guidance document proposal for treatment of transgender students." This is a clear rejection of the regulation with no qualifying support or suggested amendments.


Transgender Revisions for VA School System - Very Strongly Support

The commenter explicitly says the revisions are "Very Strongly Support" and calls them "long overdue." They also praise the policy as providing "legal protection and support" and say it will "save the lives of many Trans / Non-Binary youth."


Strongly OPPOSE transgender mandates for public schools

The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose the Virginia Department of Education's currently proposed transgender guidelines for public schools" and calls them "unacceptable controls over children." They also object that the guidelines "deny parents their rights toward their children," indicating rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose!!!!" and argues against students sharing "restrooms or locker rooms with someone of the opposite sex," which rejects the proposed transgender student policies. The comment does not suggest amendments; it opposes adoption outright.


The commenter explicitly titles the submission "Oppose" and says "This infringes on the rights of parents," indicating rejection of the proposed policies. The statement that it "doesn’t protect the privacy of all children" further criticizes the regulation rather than supporting it with modifications.


Transgender ideology in Virginia schools.

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose transgender ideology in our schools," which clearly rejects the proposed policies. They also argue it would be "harmful to our children" and would "undermine parental rights," indicating opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "STRONGLY SUPPORT" and states they are "in support of policies that acknowledge and protect transgendered students." They further argue the policies are necessary for student safety and to avoid liability, indicating clear support for adoption.


The commenter explicitly says they are "strongly opposed" and rejects the policy as "not the answer." They object to transgender students using the same "restrooms and locker rooms" and ask for separate facilities instead, indicating opposition to the regulation as written.


when did it become acceptable to discriminate against one group to pander to another?

The commenter argues the policy is "discriminating against another" group and says it creates risk by allowing access to "women only areas." They explicitly warn that these changes "need to be thought through" and imply the regulation should not be adopted as written.


The commenter explicitly says they are "very strongly opposed" and opposes "this in it’s entirety," which clearly indicates rejection of the regulation as a whole. There is no qualifying language suggesting support or a request for modification.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose!!!!" and argues the proposal "goes much further" than helping transgender students. They object to the gender identity definition, claim it removes parental rights, threatens privacy, and "compels speech," all of which indicate rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "Strongly disagree with the Transgender rule changes as proposed," which clearly rejects the regulation. They also argue against shared facilities and say "Taking parents rights to raise their kids as they see fit is wrong," indicating opposition to the policy as written.


The commenter says they are "Very strongly opposed" to the policy and frames it as "teaching immoral behavior to young minds," which clearly rejects adoption. The comment provides no support or conditional approval language.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose!" and argues the policy would "discriminate and endanger one group to pander to another," which clearly rejects adoption of the regulation. The language targets the transgender student policies themselves rather than asking for changes.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose," and argues the policy goes "TOO far." They object to students being "interrogated without a parent" and reject rules that accommodate transgender identity, indicating opposition to the regulation.


The commenter says, "I strongly oppose this new plan" and repeatedly argues against school implementation, especially bathroom access: "should 2 children of a different sex share a bathroom??? Absolutely not." They also say they would homeschool their children if it is passed, indicating clear rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY OPPOSE!!" and argues the proposal is not the state's or school board's role. They object that it concerns "matters of Faith or Morals" and insist "Parents are the primary educators," indicating rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly rejects the proposal, saying "This proposal is not the answer" and that "allowing males to use the ferooms and visa versa isn’t acceptable." They argue it would "invite" harassment and sexual misconduct, indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The comment explicitly says "STRONGLY OPPOSE!!!!" and "This shouldn’t even be a question!" indicating clear rejection of the proposed regulation. No supporting or neutral language is present.


Support - Allow children to determine who they are and want to be

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support this legislation" and argues that students should "be who they are" and have school be a "safe space" for them. The comment endorses the regulation’s purpose of affirming transgender students’ identities and safety.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY OPPOSE!!" and argues the proposal is not the state's role, calling it "indoctrinating our children." They also insist that "Parents are the primary educators" and that schools should only teach "reading writing and arithmetic," which clearly rejects the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly SUPPORT" and adds "We need to support all of our students," which clearly endorses adoption of the regulation. There is no language indicating opposition or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly says, "I am in strong support of passing this legislation" and frames the policy as necessary to "protect and support the transgender community." They also endorse the guidance as "helpful for teachers," indicating approval of the regulation as written or with its current approach.


The commenter says "Strongly oppose!" and explicitly rejects school involvement in transgender student policies, stating "Keep the school system out of our families" and "Leave the parenting to the parents." The voucher remark reinforces opposition to the proposed guidance as a school policy.


The commenter expresses support for privacy accommodations, saying it is "very reasonable" that gender non-conforming students should have access to facilities that help them "maintain their privacy." However, they also raise objections to the bathroom policy, saying it "poses problems" for "mischievous behavior" and "concerns for safety," and question the budgetary impact. Overall, the comment supports some parts of the policy but opposes key provisions as written.


The commenter explicitly titles the submission "Oppose" and argues that schools should not adopt policies that "preference anyone." The references to "science and reality" and protecting "religious freedom and freedom of speech" indicate disagreement with the transgender student policies as written.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support this legislation" and praises the model policies for helping trans and gender nonconforming students feel "safety and acceptance at school." The comment argues the policies will build "education and acceptance" and help students "not live in fear," indicating clear approval of adoption.


The commenter explicitly says "OPPOSE!" and argues that it is "no body's business" for the state or schools to decide what children are taught on matters of "Faith or Morals." They also emphasize that "Parents are the primary educators" and should alone decide these issues, indicating rejection of the proposed policies.


The commenter explicitly endorses the policy goals, stating that "Full inclusion and understanding of transgender students and related issues are much needed." This is a clear affirmative statement in favor of the regulation's adoption.


The pronoun and bathroom legislation currently being discussed for schools.

The commenter explicitly states, "I oppose!" in response to the transgender student policies. The title references "pronoun and bathroom legislation," indicating opposition to the regulation’s core provisions.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY OPPOSE" and asks the policy not be adopted: "Please do not force children" to follow it. They argue schools should not "mandat[e] or even involv[e] themselves" and reject transgender-inclusive facility use, saying kids should use facilities "according to the genitalia they are born with."


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose" the policy and objects to key provisions, including using "preferred pronouns" and allowing students to use "any bathroom or locker room they choose." They argue the policy "eliminates privacy and safety," indicating rejection of the regulation as written.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY OPPOSE" and argues the policy means to "Ignore the science" and "ignore biology". They also object to teachers being forced to act against their conscience and call the policy an "unnecessary distraction," all of which indicate rejection of the regulation.


The commenter rejects the policy’s premise, saying schools should focus on "the child's mind not their gender" and that adults encouraging gender change is "CHILD ABUSE." They also argue public education is "trying to destroy" families rather than support them, indicating opposition to the transgender student policies.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy with "No to this trans crap!" and argues against encouraging transgender identity in schools. They also claim it would create safety and privacy risks, saying it would put "boys at risk" and "girl[s] at risk" and objecting to opposite-sex supervision in bathrooms/changing rooms.


The commenter explicitly says, "I am totally against the policy going forward in our county," which clearly rejects adoption. They also object that the policy "keeps the parents... in secret" and raises fears about restroom access, indicating opposition to the transgender student policy.


The commenter explicitly says "Support!" and closes with "Support laws and guidance that support trans people." They also urge readers to "Trust science" and reject "hate and fear," clearly endorsing adoption of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly states "Oppose this," which directly indicates rejection of the proposed regulation. No qualifying language or request for modification is provided.


The commenter explicitly says "Absolutely oppose" and repeatedly calls the policy "appalling" and "dangerous." They argue it would "force" affirmation, undermine parents' authority, and constitute an "assault" on conscience, expression, privacy, and religion, all of which indicate clear rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose this policy" and repeats that they "strongly oppose this proposed policy." They argue it is "dangerous," "undermines parents/family units," and object to bathroom/changing-room access, indicating rejection of the regulation rather than support with changes.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, calling it an "appalling premise" and saying it is "morally wrong and reprehensible." They argue the schools should not "know better than parents" and object to reporting concerns to CPS and not "outing" students to parents.


The commenter explicitly says "Oppose this" and argues that "Bathrooms should be limited to the biological gender," which rejects the transgender student policy. The phrase "Keep the bathrooms a safe place for our kids!" indicates opposition based on bathroom access concerns.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do not support the new transgender policy" and argues against bathroom access based on gender identity, pronoun requirements, and shared facilities. They frame the policy as a threat to "my daughter" and call it a "violation of free speech," indicating clear opposition rather than a request for modification.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose" and urges, "Keep transgenderism out of our schools," which clearly rejects the proposed policies. The statement that schools should not "lie to their parents" also indicates opposition to the regulation's treatment of transgender students.


The commenter explicitly titles the submission "Oppose transgender guidelines proposed" and says the guidelines would "bind teachers to compliance with confusing guidelines." They argue students should not be able to change pronouns in school and that teachers must remain the authority, indicating rejection of the proposed policy.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do not approve" of the policy and gives a reason tied to religion: "because of my religion." This indicates opposition to adopting the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I don't approve" and states the policy "Is against my Christian believes," indicating opposition to the regulation. No supporting or neutral language is present.


The commenter explicitly says, "I don't approve," and argues that "the government should not push these beliefs on out children." They also state that "the parents are in charge," indicating opposition to the proposed transgender student policies.


The commenter explicitly states, "STRONGLY OPPOSE" and repeats, "I strongly oppose," which clearly indicates rejection of the regulation. No supporting arguments or qualifications are provided.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Oppose" and repeatedly argues the policy is a "BAD idea" that should not be adopted. They object to shared facilities for transgender students, saying it would put "men and women in the same bathroom/changing rooms/showers" and calling for only limited accommodations instead of the proposed policy.


The commenter explicitly says, "I am strongly opposed" and urges the state to "oppose these policies." They frame the regulation as "forcing LGBTIA+ ideology on school students" and ask the state to reject it rather than adopt it.


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

The commenter explicitly states "strong support for the Model Policies" and says they are "essential" for ensuring children can learn free from discrimination and harassment. The comment also praises the policies as providing "excellent education and guidance" and upholding desired values in schools.


The comment explicitly says "Strongly Oppose!" and provides no qualifying language or support for the regulation. This is a clear rejection of the proposed policies.


The commenter explicitly says, "Strongly Oppose" and "how fiercely I oppose this idea," which clearly rejects the regulation. They also object to "hide something so significant from a child’s family" and say it would "disregard the peace and comfort of so many," indicating opposition to the policy’s transgender student privacy provisions.


The comment explicitly says "Strongly oppose," which clearly indicates rejection of the proposed regulation. The title "Transgender bathroom" suggests the opposition is directed at transgender-related school facility policies, though no further detail is provided.


The commenter explicitly states "Strongly oppose" in both the title and body, which clearly indicates rejection of the proposed regulation. No qualifying language suggests support or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose these model policies" and repeats, "I strongly oppose these policies." They also argue the policies are unsafe and exclude parents, saying they "cut out parents to a crazy degree" and threatening to withdraw their children from public school if adopted.


The commenter explicitly says, "This is not something that I will support" and repeatedly argues against "this transgender non sense." They ask to "stop the madness" and frame the policy as causing "more drama and more bullying," indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I fully support this addition" and praises the policy as "a start." They frame it as beneficial for "student protections" and for students' "growth and well-being," indicating clear approval of adoption.


The commenter explicitly says it is "unconscionable" for VDOE to propose the rules, indicating rejection of the regulation. They object that the rules would "hide information relating to minors from parents" and "criminalize parents' religious beliefs," both of which are arguments against adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support the document" and praises the guidance as "an excellent job" and "a reasonable document." Although they note the policies "should not be necessary," the overall position is clearly in favor of adoption.


The commenter explicitly endorses the policy with the title "Support trans youth!" and argues that "Trans students have the right to be safe and respected at school." The phrase "It’s not indoctrination, it’s common decency" further indicates approval of the regulation's protections for transgender students.


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

The commenter explicitly says they "support it" and adds approval that it is "about time we protect our transgender children in school." This is a clear endorsement of adopting the proposed policies.


Is this the public education system or the public indoctrination system?

The commenter repeatedly calls the policy a "ridiculous proposed policy," says "I don’t want my kids subjected to this nonsense," and argues it should be kept away from most children. Although they express support for students with gender dysphoria, that support is paired with a clear rejection of the regulation as written and a desire to "leave the majority of children out of this."


SUPPORT TRANS LIVES AND SUPPORT THIS MEASURE!

The commenter explicitly says, "I fully support this measure implementation" and repeatedly urges to "SUPPORT THIS MEASURE." The rest of the comment reinforces approval of protections for transgender students, including "PROTECT TRANS LIVES" and rejecting claims that it is "anti-science."


The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose the model policy," and the body repeatedly argues against core provisions on pronouns, facilities, privacy, parental notification, and athletics. Although they endorse a small part of the document on dress codes and single-user bathrooms, the overall position is clearly rejection of the policy as written.


Don't support gender politics in schools...it undermines a child's first teachers, the parents.

The commenter explicitly says "Don't support gender politics in schools" and calls the policy "ludicrous," indicating clear opposition to the regulation. They argue it would "undermine the authority of parents" and that schools are acting "against them," which shows they want it rejected rather than adopted.


Virginia Department of Education Model Policies for Transgender Students

The commenter says "there are parts of the legislation that harm" students and parents, calls the proposed approach "dangerous," and argues it takes away "Constitutional and ethical rights of the parents." They explicitly urge the department to "take a step back" and "look at the situation again," indicating opposition to adoption as written.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Oppose to this Document" and repeatedly argues it "must be stopped now." They object to schools addressing transgender topics, saying it is "not right to teach this to children" and should not be part of school.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly support!" which directly endorses the regulation. The phrase "Trans rights are human rights!" reinforces approval of the transgender student policies.


Supporting Trans Students Allows for Better Learning

The commenter explicitly endorses the policies, saying "The model policies put forth are a small task" and arguing they improve learning by reducing stress for trans students. The comment frames accommodations like restroom access and chosen names as beneficial and necessary for student success.


The commenter explicitly says "SUPPORT TRANS PEOPLE" and "SUPPORT TRANS LIVES !!!!" which clearly endorses the regulation’s transgender protections. There is no language opposing or questioning the policy.


The commenter explicitly titles the comment "Oppose" and urges VDOE to "make a more inform decision about this bill" after criticizing the policy direction as harmful. Although they say they are "not advocating of the harassment of any children," the overall message argues against the regulation and frames it as risking "a lost generation."


The commenter explicitly says they are "concerned about the transgender policy proposed here" and argues it is "the antithesis of truth and goodness." They repeatedly reject the policy, saying it would "reinforce a lie," force restroom and sports participation changes, and "push Christian educators outside of the public sphere."


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Support" and argues that "We must protect trans kids in our education system." They also cite evidence about pronoun respect and suicide prevention to justify adopting the policy.


The commenter explicitly says, "I agree and think it should be added," which indicates support for adopting the regulation. The caveat "as long as it’s fair for everyone and no one abuses the system" suggests a conditional endorsement rather than opposition.


Suppor! All children deserve humane treatment

The commenter explicitly says, "I support adopting this guidance for schools" and further endorses it by stating, "We must treat children with dignity and respect." This is a clear affirmative position on adoption of the regulation.


Transgender policy & education of students

The commenter says, "I strongly oppose any policy-making or curriculum development re transgenderism," which directly rejects the proposed guidance. They also add, "This is not a subject teachers should have to deal with," indicating opposition to implementing the policy in schools.


The commenter explicitly says the guidelines are "one-sided, controversial, extreme" and argues they "should be rewritten" by more balanced drafters, indicating opposition to adoption as written. They also reject multiple core provisions, including parent notification limits, name/pronoun accommodation, and gender-neutral attire requirements.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly disagree" and argues that elementary school children are "much to young" to make these decisions. They also reject the policy’s implications for dress codes and facilities, saying it would be "terrible" and would "increase the number of rapes and assaults."


The commenter explicitly says, "I support this measure." They also affirm the policy’s subject matter by stating, "Trans people exist and sometimes those people are kids too!!!"


The commenter clearly rejects the policy, opening with "NO!!!!!!! No!!!! No!!!! No!!!!" and arguing that it is "reckless" to teach children about transgender issues. They also say it is "not the government’s job" to address this topic in schools, indicating opposition to adoption of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose," which directly indicates opposition to the proposed policies. The phrase "WHATS NEXT" adds no support or substantive qualification, so the clearest reading is rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says that "Everything else in the proposal is confusing and often illogical" and criticizes it as "pushing ideological agendas," indicating rejection of the regulation as proposed. While they endorse one sentence about treating students with respect, the overall message is that only that line should remain and the rest should not be adopted.


The commenter explicitly says "support" and the title states "fully support trans youth," indicating clear approval of the proposed policies. There is no language suggesting opposition or neutrality.


Policies are short sighted: Don't incorporate parents or the thoughts/concerns of other students

The commenter repeatedly says the guidance is "short sighted," "will do much more harm than good," and argues it should be changed to focus on counseling rather than the current protections. They explicitly object to the policy's handling of pronouns, student privacy, and the "lack of inclusion of parents/guardians," indicating opposition to adoption in its present form.


The commenter explicitly endorses transgender rights with the title "Trans rights are human rights" and states that "All individuals deserve the freedom to live as they choose and to express themselves as they wish." This aligns with supporting the proposed policies protecting transgender students.


The commenter explicitly says "support trans youth" and argues that "an inclusive curriculum and a learning environment safe from discrimination is a basic human right." They describe the harms of exclusion and endorse the regulation’s goal of protecting transgender students.


100% SUPPORT this! There shouldn’t even be a debate about this. Trans children deserve protection!

The commenter explicitly says "100% SUPPORT this!" and argues that "Trans children deserve protection," indicating clear approval of the regulation. They also urge, "Do not let their fear put the lives of Trans children in danger!" which reinforces support for adoption.


The commenter explicitly rejects the regulation with phrases like "Disgusting. Please NO!" and "Absolutely NOT!". This is a clear call for the policies not to be adopted.


OPPOSE - this is creating social pressure to BECOME trans

The commenter explicitly labels the submission "OPPOSE" and argues the policies are harmful, saying they create "social pressure to BECOME trans" and that schools should "treat children biologically." They also claim the proposal lacks protections against "predatory practices," indicating rejection rather than support or a neutral request for information.


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

The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose the Model Policies for the Treatment Virginia's public school". Although they affirm dignity and respect, they reject the policy because they believe it would violate their right to refer to "the God given gender" as determined by DNA.


Seek to support the whole child - concerns with current proposal

The commenter explicitly says they are "very concerned about these proposed model policies" and urges the agency to reconsider them, arguing they "infringe on parental rights" and could have unintended consequences for children. They repeatedly criticize the policies as encouraging "immediate and total affirmation" and as potentially hiding information from parents, which indicates opposition to adoption as written.


The commenter explicitly says "support!!!!!! support" and adds "support trans kids making informed decisions that will benefit their wellbeing," which clearly endorses the regulation. There is no indication of مخالفة or neutrality.


Strongly support creating a better future for trans students

The commenter explicitly says they are "strongly support[ive]" of the policy and calls it "an important and valuable start" and hopes it "comes into full force and effect." They repeatedly endorse adoption because it would help trans students feel "safe and supported" and protect privacy, names/pronouns, and bullying prevention.


The commenter explicitly states "Strongly oppose," which directly indicates rejection of the proposed regulation. No additional context or qualifications are provided.


The comment explicitly says "Strongly oppose," which clearly indicates rejection of the proposed regulation. No additional context or qualifications are provided.


unfortunately; this policy has many serious issues that violate the rights of and discriminate again

The commenter repeatedly says the policy "has many serious issues," "should not" be taught, and "should be changed" or written differently, indicating clear opposition to adoption as drafted. They argue it violates parents' rights, religious freedom, privacy, and forces pronoun and facility accommodations they reject.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose" and supports that position with a religious citation: "from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female." This indicates opposition to the transgender student policies rather than a neutral or informational comment.


The commenter explicitly writes "SUPPORT" and enthusiastically endorses the policy with "SUPPORTTTTTT TRANS KIDS!!!!!!!!" This is a clear affirmative position in favor of adopting the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly support" and argues that the policies are needed to "protect trans kids in our education system." They also cite suicide-prevention benefits of respecting pronouns, indicating approval of the regulation's purpose and adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "Wholeheartedly approve!" and states that "These guidelines outline policies that will provide a safe, supportive, and kind school environment for all children." The comment consistently endorses the regulation as beneficial for student well-being and learning.


The commenter explicitly says, "I stand in support of trans kids in Virginia" and "strongly support this legislation," which clearly endorses adoption of the policy. There is no opposing or qualifying language.


The commenter urges readers to "think about this from all angles" and emphasizes "all the bad the horrible things this can bring," which indicates opposition to the proposed policies. Although the comment is vague and does not name specific provisions, its overall message is clearly negative toward adoption.


The comment explicitly says "SUPPORT" and the title "SUPPORT TRANS YOUTH" clearly endorses the proposed policies. There is no language indicating any objection or qualification.


The commenter explicitly says "The proposed policy is a good start" and frames the policy as necessary because of "ignorant and intensely discriminatory comments." They also express personal approval and wish it "could've been in place" during their schooling, indicating clear support for adoption.


The commenter explicitly endorses allowing students to identify or change genders: "they should be allowed to do so." They also support protections in school, saying "Kids should be protected to avoid harassment for their gender or sexual identity," which aligns with the proposed transgender student policies.


The commenter explicitly says, "I am OPPOSED to the State inflicted Policy Guidance" and asks that it not be adopted. The rationale centers on objections that it excludes parents and violates "religious freedom" and constitutional rights, indicating clear opposition to the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "Strongly support this policy," which directly endorses adoption of the regulation. The title, "Strongly support trans children," reinforces that positive position.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support this policy and VA lawmakers should too," which directly endorses adoption. The rest of the comment reinforces support for transgender students and argues against those who want them to have "less human rights."


The commenter explicitly says, "Reject the policy guidance document" and calls the policy "outrageous." They ask to "revise the policy" to add protections against "a biological boy sharing a bathroom or locker room" with their daughter, indicating opposition to the proposed guidance as written.


The commenter explicitly says, "I say no to this proposed policy and very strongly oppose it." The body repeatedly argues the policies are harmful, promote deception, infringe on parents' rights, threaten privacy, and burden teachers, all of which indicate rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "strongly support" and "support trans kids," which clearly endorses the regulation. The statement "Trans kids deserve to be protected in schools" aligns with the policy’s goal of protecting transgender students.


Opposed on Ethical Grounds - Encourage Dialogue instead of Silencing Concerns

The commenter explicitly says they have "significant ethical concerns" about the proposed guidelines and asks legislators to "please think further about this topic," indicating they do not want the policy adopted as written. They object to taking a student's gender identity "at face value," keeping information from parents, and what they describe as "compel[led] speech," all of which show opposition to the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "OPPOSE - No statewide mandate!!" and states "I oppose the state taking such a blanket one-size-fits-all approach." They argue that "Trans/gender issues are not the state's business" and that these are "PARENTAL issues," indicating rejection of the regulation.


The proposed Virginia Department of Education transgender policy is wrongheaded and evil.

The commenter explicitly calls the policy "wrongheaded and evil" and says it "will also trample the rights of others," indicating clear opposition to adoption. They argue it gives schools too much authority over children and excludes parents from decisions, which is a substantive objection to the regulation.


The commenter explicitly states "SUPPORT" and reinforces it with "strongly support!" This is a clear endorsement of adopting the proposed regulation.


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


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose!" and argues against the policy by warning it will lead to harm in "bathrooms and locker rooms." The rhetorical questions about pregnancy, STDs, and foster care are presented as reasons to reject the regulation rather than amend it.


The commenter explicitly asks, "Please don't do this," indicating opposition to the proposed transgender student policies. They argue it could have a "serious negative and lasting impact" and say, "Let them choose as adults," which supports rejecting or delaying the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support this bill," which directly indicates approval of the proposed regulation. The rest of the comment reinforces support for transgender students and the policy's protections, criticizing objections based on religious rights.


The commenter explicitly says, "I Strongly oppose this!" and repeatedly argues the policy is "wrong" and should not be considered. They object to transgender accommodations in schools, including restroom access and the idea that children can make such decisions.


strongly agree!!! this is so important for students in our schools

The commenter explicitly says "strongly agree" and repeats that "this is so important," which clearly endorses the proposed policies. There is no language indicating concern, opposition, or a request for changes.


My Identity is NOT up for Debate! Trans student

The commenter identifies as a "Trans student" and frames their identity as valid and not subject to debate, which strongly signals support for policies protecting transgender students. Although the comment is very brief and does not explicitly mention the regulation, the wording aligns with endorsement of the proposed guidance.


The commenter explicitly labels the submission "Opposed" and says the policy has "too many gray areas" that "can cause problems," indicating rejection of the regulation. The closing statement, "Virginia can do better," reinforces that they want a different approach rather than adoption as written.


The commenter explicitly says "Extremely Opposed" and argues the policy is "wrong on so many levels." They claim it violates "rights and privacy," "parental rights," and "the first amendment," and conclude it will not create a safe environment, indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, stating "No, we don’t need that in our school." This is a clear opposition to the proposed transgender student policies rather than a request for changes or a neutral question.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly OPPOSE" and "I completely disagree with this idea!!" They argue the policy "removes parental rights" and raises concerns about restroom sharing, indicating rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy with the title "No for transgender" and argues against "add[ing] the opposite sex to sports bathroom showets." They say schools should not focus on these issues and claim the policy will "encourag[e] confusion," indicating opposition to the regulation.


The commenter explicitly states "STRONGLY SUPPORT" and adds "I am extremely supportive of this!!!!!" This is a clear endorsement of adopting the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose," which directly states opposition to the regulation. They also argue it "strips parents of basic rights" and is "an infringement on religious beliefs," indicating they want it rejected.


OPPOSE - bad people will lie about being trans

The commenter explicitly labels the submission "OPPOSE" and argues that the policies would enable abuse, saying "bad people will lie about being trans" and that there is "no way in this bill that a school could penalize appropriately" if the policies are abused. The comment clearly rejects the regulation on safety and enforcement grounds.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support this guidance" and repeatedly endorses the policy goals, including a "safe learning environment" and that "Trans rights and LGBTQIA+ rights should be respected by all." They also urge, "Protect every single person," indicating clear approval of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "Generally support," indicating approval of the regulation overall. The rest of the comment raises a specific implementation concern about "locker room /rest rooms" and privacy in schools without adequate facilities, which suggests a request for safeguards rather than opposition.


The commenter explicitly says, "I believe this should be something that is adressed at home, and not in the school setting," which rejects the policy's school-based approach. They also say, "I strongly support limiting the participation to biological women," indicating opposition to the regulation's transgender student participation provisions.


The commenter explicitly says, "As a taxpayer I oppose this" and argues that transgender-related matters should be handled by parents and medical specialists rather than schools. They also say schools should not be "assigning gender designations" and that funding should not be used on "material that should be addressed by parents and family," indicating opposition to the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "This should NOT even be top priority or even a concern" and asks, "Please do not move forward with this!" They also call the policy "dangerous" and "100% wrong," indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose!!!!" and repeatedly argues the policy is "psychologically and physically dangerous," "absolutely WRONG," and would create "CHAOS and CONFUSION." They also urge schools to "Stick to teaching MATH, READING, SCIENCE!" rather than adopt these guidelines.


Opposed There should be zero tolerance for bullying

The commenter explicitly says "Opposed" and argues the proposal "pushes a singular agenda" and "undermines a parent's ability" to act in their child's best interests. Although they mention "zero tolerance for bullying," the overall thrust is against adopting the regulation as written.


The commenter explicitly states "strongly opposed to this," which clearly indicates rejection of the proposed regulation. No supporting reasons or qualifications are provided.


I have a grandchild who has been diagnosed as transgender.

The commenter asks the agency to "put you selves in their position" and to "Let here be for now as she identified with and help her sustain her successful life," which clearly supports policies that affirm the grandchild's transgender identity. The comment expresses concern about the child's future and family support, indicating approval of the regulation's protective intent rather than opposition.


The commenter explicitly asks, "Please don’t let this flop" and "Support our children," which indicates approval of the proposed policies. The phrase "All rights matter" reinforces support rather than opposition, though the comment is brief and somewhat vague.


Draft model policies for the treatment of transgender studentsD

The commenter says they "strongly urge that nothing be done" to advance the policies and objects to "governmental entities including public schools" being involved. They also criticize "denying parents information," indicating opposition to the proposed transgender student guidance.


The commenter explicitly says "Oppose to the highest degree" and rejects core elements of the policy, including shared "bathroom or locker room" access, pronoun use, and school handling of student issues without parental notification. The final sentence expresses strong disapproval of the proposal itself: "I honestly cannot even believe this is being proposed by the VDOE."


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Opposed!" and argues the policies are "against all religious teaching and basic human morality." They also demand punishment for supporters and warn of lawsuits, indicating clear rejection of the regulation.


The commenter says they "very STRONGLY oppose ALL aspects" of the policy and explicitly rejects the proposed transgender school guidance. They also argue it is "harmful for children" and "violate[s] the U.S. Constitution," indicating clear opposition rather than a request for changes.


The commenter explicitly says, "Strongly agree" and adds that "we need to protect and include our trans children," which clearly endorses the proposed policies. There is no indication of opposition or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly says "VOTE NO! OPPOSED!" and asks officials to "NOT add" gender identity language to the policy. They repeatedly reject transgender students' access to bathrooms and locker rooms, stating "I cannot support biological males being in my daughter’s bathroom or locker room" and concluding "My children won't be taking gym class then."


Guidance for trnasgenders in the public schools

The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, calling it "Totally NUTS!" and criticizing the Department of Education for focusing on "this" instead of "delivering quality education." They also frame the guidance as part of broader political failure, saying "the libs just keep it up and things keep getting worse and worse."


The commenter explicitly says "I am in full support of the protection of nonbinary and trans kids" and frames the policy as necessary protection. They also urge action with "We must protect ALL children," indicating clear approval of the regulation.


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


Support our trans students and their families

The commenter explicitly says, "I am fully supportive of creating policy around best practices" and endorses an "open and free education/school environment for trans children." They also state the policy is "needed" to provide protections against "bullying and discrimination," indicating clear support for adoption.


The commenter clearly rejects the policy, saying "This disgusts me," "I am sickened," and warning they will "be taking my daughter out of public school if this passes." They argue against bathroom access and teacher requirements, framing the policy as dangerous and inappropriate.


The commenter explicitly says, "I am opposed to the proposed legislation" and repeats that they are "strongly" opposed. They object to the policy’s impact on their children’s upbringing and school environment, saying they do not want their children "learning about such things" and are considering private school.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose transgender" and argues against the policy's inclusion of transgender students in female facilities. Phrases like "If you are biological male... you use the male locker room" show opposition to the regulation as proposed.


In support of equal rights for all, maintaining the equal rights of women and girls

The commenter quotes the policy’s goal of a “safe and supportive learning environment” but then argues against transgender-inclusive implementation, saying sports should be “limited to a single biological sex” and that bathrooms should be single-sex spaces. The final sentence says policies should support students “without promoting and reinforcing” gender dysphoria, indicating opposition to the proposed guidance as written.


Strongly Opposed - Dangerous for Both Cis and non-binary Children

The commenter explicitly says, "I am strongly opposed" and argues the policy is "not safe" for both cis-gender and non-binary students. They ask for "another way to practice inclusivity" rather than adopting this regulation, indicating rejection of the proposal as written.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose this legislation," which directly states opposition to the proposed policies. The rest of the comment argues for sex-based bathroom access: "If you have male parts you use men’s bathroom" and "female parts you use women’s bathroom," indicating rejection of the transgender student guidance.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose the proposed transgender guidelines." They also object to public funding, stating it is "wrong to spend my tax dollars to promote issues that I disagree with," which reinforces opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says "Very strongly opposed" and tells the agency to "Keep your virtue signaling to yourselves," indicating rejection of the proposed policies. The final sentence, "Stick to reading, writing, and arithmetic," further signals they do not want these transgender student policies adopted in schools.


The commenter explicitly says, "Strongly support" and repeats, "I support this document." They also endorse the policy goal of making schools "a safe and welcoming place for trans students," indicating clear approval of adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose" the policy. The phrase "demonic filth" shows clear rejection of the regulation and its subject matter.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY OPPOSE" and urges officials to "change this back to separate girl/boy/family rest rooms and locker rooms." The body argues against transgender-inclusive access in schools, especially bathrooms and locker rooms, indicating rejection of the proposed policies.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose this," and argues the school should not "guide my child in deciding there gender." They also object to being "criminalized" for affirming a gender assigned by God, indicating rejection of the proposed transgender student policies.


I oppose this policy (provisions for counselling, safety, hypocrisy).

The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose this policy" and repeatedly argues against adoption, claiming it "provides safety for transgender students at the expense of" others and that it "mandate[s] an ideology." The comment calls for counseling/therapy instead of the policy and frames the proposal as harmful and hypocritical.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Oppose!!!!!!!" and argues the policy "will open the door to even more bullying and problems in dressing rooms and bathrooms." This is a clear rejection of the proposed regulation based on safety and facility-use concerns.


The commenter explicitly says they are in "resounding support" and that the guidelines will "empower educators to protect and nurture trans and gender expansive students." They also state the policies will give students "an incredible resource" and "dignity," indicating clear approval of adoption.


department of education transgender policies in schools

The commenter explicitly rejects the policy’s approach to transgender students, saying "do not mix us in the school situation" and arguing that "biological males need to be in sports, locker rooms and bathrooms with other biological males." The comment also says "Stop taking away womens rights," indicating opposition to the regulation’s inclusionary provisions.


The commenter rejects the policy’s underlying approach, calling it "objectively and scientifically erroneous ideology" and saying it has caused "extensive, well-documented physical and emotional harm to children." The title "Compassion, not harmful ideology" also signals opposition to the regulation as written.


The commenter explicitly says the policies "should be rejected immediately" and "wholly rejected," which is a clear call to oppose adoption. Although they add that students with gender dysphoria should be treated with compassion, that does not change their overall rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly წერს "Strongly Support" and adds the directive "Protect trans kids," which clearly endorses adoption of the policy. There is no language indicating opposition or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly says "Full support!!!" and describes the policy as "a good step" toward helping trans kids feel "welcome and safe." This clearly endorses adoption of the regulation.


The commenter says they are "strongly against" the policy and calls it "tyranny" that "must not be allowed to prevail." They also object to "biological males" being allowed into locker rooms, indicating clear opposition to the transgender student policies.


The comment is incoherent and appears off-topic, asking about unrelated forums like "mental illness," "blindness," and "swim pool regulatiopns." It does not express a discernible position on the proposed transgender student policies.


Science is 2 genders XX and XY Chromosomes

The commenter explicitly says their children will not return to a government school if the policy is implemented and calls it "FAKE SCIENCE," indicating clear opposition to adoption. They also reject transgender students being allowed to use shared facilities, saying they will never attend a school where they are "allowed to comingle in compromising situations such as bathrooms or locker rooms."


The commenter explicitly says they are "down 100% with this one" and explains that "it's important for everyone" and that "nobody should get excluded." This is a clear endorsement of the proposed policies.


Strongly support the protection of our transgendered students.

The commenter explicitly says, "Strongly support the protection of our transgendered students," which clearly endorses the regulation. They further argue that transgender children are "extremely vulnerable to bullying and discrimination" and that "we need to do our part to protect and advocate for this population," indicating approval of the policy's purpose and protections.


The commenter explicitly labels the submission "Strongly Opposed" and argues that these policies "only divide & separate children, categorized & confused!" Although they say "No child should be discriminated against, harassed or bullied," the overall thrust is rejection of the proposed transgender-student policies and opposition to state involvement.


The commenter says the proposed policies "go far beyond" civil rights concerns and states, "This is not the kind of policy that should be decided and passed." They also object to schools making health decisions without parents' permission, indicating opposition to adoption as written.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose" and argues that "Biological sex is the only reasonable means of assigning bathrooms," which rejects the policy’s approach to transgender student accommodations. The statement "It is not safe to do anything else" further indicates opposition based on safety concerns.


The commenter explicitly says, "This action needs to be supported" and repeats "Support this." The rest of the comment reinforces approval of the policy through language about "more inclusivity, equality, diversity, and community."


The commenter explicitly says, "I support this policy" and asks to "support trans rights." They also endorse the policy as a way of giving "trans kids the respect and acknowledgement they deserve," indicating clear approval of adoption.


The commenter explicitly says "STOP!!!" and claims the policies "threaten the safety of students" and "promote keeping parents in the dark," indicating clear rejection. They also object that the policies threaten "RELIGIOUS LIBERTIES" and push an "EXTREME LGBT agenda," which further shows opposition to adoption.


Vehemently OPPOSE this legislative abomination!

The commenter explicitly says "Vehemently OPPOSE" and repeatedly urges, "Please do not pass this legislative abomination!" They argue the policy restricts parents' rights, allows "boys... using girls' restrooms," and call it "unconstitutional," all of which indicate clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose this movement," which directly rejects the proposed policies. They also argue it "causes internal and purposeful conflict and harm" and creates "confusion and self doubt," indicating opposition to adoption.


Support of our Transgender Children & Their Futures

The commenter explicitly says, "I support the practices and updates outlined in the VDOE document" and argues that schools "must support students" and "update policies to reflect those changes." The comment endorses the regulation’s protections around bathrooms, locker rooms, sports, and dress code for transgender students.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose" and repeatedly states they "can not support this action" and "pray that it is not put into practice." They argue the policy violates "parental discretion" and religious beliefs, and say "Lgbt stuff is not for schools."


The commenter explicitly offers "Full Support for Protection" and argues that transgender students "deserve to feel safe and accepted." The comment endorses the policy’s protective purpose and does not express any opposition or reservations.


The comment consists solely of "No!", which clearly rejects the proposed regulation. There is no qualifying language suggesting support or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly says "Vote NO!!!" and calls the policy "wrong," which clearly rejects adoption of the regulation. The claim that it "Puts our children at risk of abuse" indicates opposition based on perceived harm.


The commenter clearly rejects the policy, calling it "a recipe for disaster" and "ludicrous." They argue it would enable abuse in "the locker room/bathroom" and insist facilities should be based on "sex chromosomes," indicating opposition to the regulation as written.


The commenter explicitly gives "Strong approval" and says "This is an easy choice to make," indicating clear support for the proposed policies. They also endorse the underlying approach by urging to "Treat people with fairness and dignity" and describing the policies as helping vulnerable children.


The commenter explicitly says, "Strongly oppose this document" and describes it as establishing "unhelpful and dangerous precedents." Although they acknowledge the need to protect transgender students, the overall thrust is that the policy should not be adopted in its current form.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Support!" and argues that "Trans students deserve a safe and accepting learning environment." They also state it is Virginia's duty to provide this, indicating clear approval of the regulation.


Strongly opposing the public school system failing society

The commenter explicitly says they are "strongly opposing" the proposal and repeatedly urges officials to "Stop trying to gain more control over our children." They also reject transgender accommodations in schools, objecting to "opposite gender in a locker room or bathroom" and saying they will withdraw their children if it passes.


The commenter says, "This is not fair to all," which indicates objection to the proposed policies on fairness grounds. Although brief, the statement clearly signals opposition rather than support or a neutral question.


Trans rights are human rights and trans kids deserve protection

The commenter explicitly endorses the policy, saying trans kids "deserve to be protected by our school system" and framing the regulation as necessary protection. The statement "Exactly what the title says" and the rejection of objections indicate clear support for adoption.


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


The commenter explicitly gives a title of "Strong support of legislation that protects children and saves lives" and repeatedly urges approval, saying "By supporting this legislation" and calling it "the bare minimum." The comment argues the policies protect students from harassment and violence and help prevent suicidality among transgender youth.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY OPPOSE" and argues against the policy being "force[d]" on their child and others. They frame the regulation as going "WAY to far," indicating rejection rather than support or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly states "Full support" and says the policy will "provide necessary protection and validation for trans students in Virginia." They also urge officials to "pass this bill," indicating clear approval of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "support trans students," which clearly endorses the regulation’s purpose of protecting transgender students. The title "support AND protect trans students" reinforces that they favor adoption of the policy.


The commenter explicitly titles the submission "Strongly oppose" and expresses fear for daughters' "health or well being." The concern about a girl being "picked on or abused" indicates opposition to the policy on safety grounds, even though the comment is truncated.


The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose your transgender proposal," which directly rejects the regulation. They also argue for greater parental control and disclosure, stating "Parents need to be informed" and "Full transparency between the school, parent and child," indicating opposition to the policy as written.


The commenter explicitly endorses the policy with the title "Support transgender protections - trans rights are human rights" and states that transgender people "should have all the same rights, opportunities, and protections." This clearly supports adoption of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "Very much in support" and "I'm glad it is finally happening," indicating clear approval of the regulation. They also endorse its goals of addressing "dress code, preferred pronouns and preferred names" and eliminating "discrimination" while promoting a "safe space."


The commenter explicitly says "I strongly support" and repeatedly argues that the policy is needed to protect "trans, non-binary and gender non-conforming students." They also call it "the first step" and say "It’s time for change," indicating clear approval of the regulation.


The comment is largely incoherent and appears to be a joke or unrelated rant about trains, pollution, and energy sources rather than the proposed transgender student policy. It does not clearly express support for or opposition to the regulation.


Needs serious reconsideration and modifications

The commenter explicitly says, "I do not support the use of school bathrooms according to which gender a student identifies with" and calls for "one or several separate gender neutral bathrooms" instead. Although they express support for a person's right to identify their gender, the core recommendation is to reject this aspect of the policy and replace it with a more restrictive alternative.


XY and XX - it’s science y’all; GOD says so!

The commenter explicitly rejects the policy as "overkill" and says "Stop pushing this agenda" and that it is "not appropriate in the public school system." They argue against recognition of transgender students and ask why a "biological male" should use girls' facilities, indicating opposition to adoption of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "It's our human duty to protect and support our youth," and frames that support as applying "regardless of gender identity or sexuality." This clearly endorses the regulation’s protective treatment of transgender students.


The commenter explicitly labels the proposal as "egregiously one sided" and says it gives "too much power and control" to one social group. They also argue it should not be adopted because it alienates non-transgender rights and raises concerns about bathroom/locker room access and staff being forced into decisions against their values.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Oppose" and repeatedly argues the guidance "is wholly unconstitutional and wrong" and "should, and will, be challenged in the courts." They object to it on grounds of free speech, parental rights, and religious freedom, indicating clear opposition to adoption.


It is essential that children and youth be able to learn without suffering discrimination or harassment.

The commenter explicitly says, "I support these model policies for LGBTQ students in Virginia" and repeatedly states that "These policies are necessary." They argue the policies will "protect LGBTQ youth," prevent harassment, and help students feel "safe and respected at school," all of which indicates clear support for adoption.


The commenter rejects the policy’s approach to transgender students’ facility use, stating that people should use bathrooms and locker rooms based on anatomy: "if they have a penis they need to use the men’s locker room and bathroom." The closing demand to "Stop putting children at risk" and hashtag "#protectourkids" indicate opposition to the regulation as written.


The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose this wholeheartedly" and asks, "Please do not indoctrinate our children," which clearly rejects the regulation. They also argue that "The school systems should not be involved in this issue," indicating opposition to the policy itself.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY OPPOSE" and rejects key parts of the policy, stating they do not believe "genetically endowed boys" should be in girls' locker rooms or bathrooms and that they should not play on girls' athletic teams. The final sentence calls for "separate teams, separate locker rooms and separate bathrooms," indicating opposition to the proposed inclusive policy.


The commenter explicitly says, "Please offer support for our transgender students in Virginia," which clearly endorses the regulation. The reference to transgender students being a "high risk group for dying by suicide" further indicates support for protective measures and community affirmation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I’m proud to support this guidance" and argues it will help schools "provide a safe and inclusive educational experience for all students." The comment endorses the policy as a needed resource for teachers and schools to support transgender and LGBT youth.


The comment explicitly says "Strongly Support," which clearly indicates approval of the proposed regulation. No contrary language or qualifications are present.


The commenter explicitly argues the policy is "at odds" with inclusiveness, says it "clearly violates the First Amendment," and warns it goes "far beyond the envelope" of the school’s role. They also frame it as an overreach that will lead to lawsuits, indicating they want it rejected rather than adopted.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support this legislation," which directly endorses adoption of the proposed policies. The title, "Strongly support transgender youth rights," reinforces that supportive position.


The comment dismisses transgender identity as a modern problem caused by "liberalism" and mocks the idea of changing sex, indicating opposition to the proposed transgender student policies. The rhetorical question and sarcastic example suggest the commenter does not support adoption of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly opposed!" which directly indicates rejection of the proposed policies. The statement "Puts our children at risk" shows a negative reason for opposing adoption.


You get what you vote for Virginia! now, your child will be disciplined for saying wrong pronoun

The commenter clearly rejects the policy, calling it "foolishness," "pure insanity," and a "woke agenda." They argue it overrides "parental rights" and harms "biological male and female rights," indicating opposition to adoption of the regulation.


The comment explicitly states "STRONGLY OPPOSE" and provides no qualifying language suggesting support or neutrality. It is a clear rejection of the proposed regulation.


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


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY OPPOSE" and argues the policy "goes against everything we have fought for." They object to transgender students' access to shared facilities, saying it should not "take the rights of the rest of us" and suggesting a separate "transgender bathroom" instead.


The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose legislation... which promotes or explores the transgender lifestyle," indicating clear rejection of the proposed policies. They also urge officials to be removed and replaced with people who "adhere to the traditional family unit," reinforcing opposition to transgender-inclusive guidance.


While I love all people, I strongly CANNOT support this Bill as it hurts the rights of many.

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly do NOT support this bill" and "Please vote NO," which clearly indicates opposition to adoption. The phrase "it hurts the rights of many" further shows they believe the regulation should be rejected.


STRONGLY SUPPORT! You can not pick and chose which children to protect

The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY SUPPORT!" and argues the policy is needed to protect children from exclusion and discrimination. Phrases like "There is NO HIERARCHY when it comes to human rights" and "There needs to be evolution" clearly endorse the regulation's protective aims.


The commenter explicitly says they are "Opposed to transgender bill for public schools" and argues it "Ties the hands of teachers," indicating rejection of the policy. The phrase "protect our children from those who abuse the system" frames the regulation negatively and supports opposition.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY SUPPORT!" and argues that the policy should protect transgender children from exclusion and discrimination. Phrases like "There is NO HIERARCHY when it comes to human rights" and "There needs to be evolution" clearly endorse adoption of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose" and argues against the policy by stating "We cannot continue to blend the genders." They also reject the regulation’s approach to sports, restrooms, and school policies, saying these should follow a binary definition of sex/gender.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose" and argues against the policy by stating "We cannot continue to blend the genders." They also reject the regulation’s implications for "Sports, restrooms, policies" and say anything beyond a binary approach is "asking for MORE bullying and issues."


The commenter explicitly says, "We need legal protections for trans children" and argues that schools have an "obligation to protect them" and ensure they feel "safe and secure." This clearly աջակցs adopting the proposed transgender student policies, likely as protections against bullying and discrimination.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly opposed to transgender policy" and calls to "DEFUND PUBLIC EDUCATION! REMOVE YOUR KIDS NOW !!!!" indicating clear rejection of the regulation. The comment also objects to the policy as violating "parents moral, religious, health rights" and frames it as "even MORE DISTURBING," reinforcing opposition.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose" and argues against "blend[ing] the genders," indicating rejection of the proposed transgender student policies. They also state that "Sports, restrooms, policies should be directed to the scientific definition of gender," which opposes the regulation's inclusive approach.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose" and argues that schools should not "blend the genders." They reject the policy’s approach to transgender students and say sports, restrooms, and policies should follow a binary sex definition instead.


The commenter explicitly endorses inclusive policies, stating they are "the first step towards making educational spaces safe for everyone." They also reject arguments against the policy by saying the claimed danger to cisgender women "simply does not exist."


The commenter explicitly says "IN STRONG SUPPORT" and the title "yes for trans protection" clearly endorses the regulation. There is no indication of opposition or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly says "Support Transgender students!!" and adds that "Transgender students deserve to be supported just as any student," which clearly endorses the policy's purpose. There is no indication of opposition or neutrality.


Brainwashing overstep parents have rights

The commenter calls the policy a "complete overstep" and tells the board to "Take your re- education and shove it," which clearly rejects the regulation. The reference to "parents have rights" and opposition to "liberal" guidance further indicates they want it rejected rather than adopted.


The commenter explicitly says "Adamantly oppose!" which clearly rejects the proposed transgender student policies. No supporting or neutral language is present.


The commenter explicitly says, "Of course I support this," which directly endorses the regulation. The rest of the comment, "it’s a restroom.... duh, let people pee in peace," reinforces support for allowing transgender students access to facilities without interference.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose!" and urges to "Stop confusing our children!" which clearly rejects the proposed transgender student policies. No supporting or neutral language is present.


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


The comment explicitly says "Strongly Oppose!" and repeats "Strongly Oppose!" with no qualifying language. This is a clear rejection of the proposed regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I am strongly opposed" and argues against schools "keeping any information from parents" and "bending to wayward progressive agendas." The comment clearly rejects the proposed transgender student policies and frames them as harmful to parental rights and public schools.


The commenter explicitly states "STRONGLY SUPPORT," which directly indicates approval of the proposed regulation. There is no qualifying language or criticism suggesting any opposition or neutrality.


The comment explicitly says "Adamantly oppose!" which clearly indicates rejection of the proposed regulation. No supporting reasons or qualifications are provided, but the stance is unambiguous.


Model Policies for Treatment of Transgender Students in Virginia Schools

The commenter explicitly says, "Strongly support LGBTQ community," which clearly endorses the policy’s purpose. They also state they are "Strongly against bigotry and discrimination," aligning with the regulation’s nondiscrimination and supportive-environment goals.


I strongly support the model policy. We need to protect and care for trans youth so they can succeed

The commenter explicitly says, "I support the model policy" and "Please do not listen to the transphobic commenters," which clearly endorses adoption of the policy. They also state it is "necessary and important" to protect trans youth in schools.


The commenter explicitly says they "Strongly support equal rights for transgender students" and "applaud this step in the right direction." They also describe the policy as a needed response to discrimination and unsafe school environments, indicating clear approval of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY SUPPORT" and adds "Strongly support for treatment of all kids!" indicating clear approval of the regulation. There is no language suggesting opposition or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly says they "strongly disagree" with schools helping students explore gender identity and repeatedly asks to "do not let transgender or sexual identity issues be allowed into the school curriculum." They argue these matters should be handled by "parents, families, and medical personnel, not school personnel," indicating clear opposition to the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY OPPOSE transgender policy" and repeatedly condemns the proposal as "nonsense." They argue it will "cause more problems" and object to schools not notifying parents, indicating rejection of the regulation rather than support or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly says "OPPOSE! OPPOSE! OPPOSE!" and argues that if passed it will "decrease" public education quality. They predict harmful consequences such as teachers losing jobs, schools closing, and parents turning to private schools, indicating clear rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose" and adds "Stop confusing children," which clearly rejects the proposed transgender student policies. The language indicates opposition to adoption rather than a request for modification.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly opposed" and argues against schools addressing transgender-related issues. They object to bathroom access and overnight room sharing with transgender students, saying these policies threaten "safety and privacy."


New Transgender School Guidance Guidelines

The commenter explicitly says, "I am absolutely opposed to these new guidelines for transgender students," which directly rejects the regulation. The rest of the comment argues that sex is fixed at birth and that changing a name or identification does not alter biology, reinforcing opposition to the policy's premise.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose!" and frames the policy as unfair by stating "Non-transgender people have rights too," indicating rejection of the proposed transgender student policies. There is no indication of support or neutrality.


The commenter clearly rejects the policy with the title "Absolutely not" and the statement "Not good for children," indicating opposition to adopting the regulation. No supportive or neutral language is present.


The commenter explicitly says "Very strongly support" and argues that transgender students' rights are "basic human rights." The statement defends the policy's purpose by affirming that transgender students' existence should not "confuse" or "frighten" others and that their rights do not infringe on anyone else's.


The commenter explicitly says the "proposed guidelines" are inappropriate and should not be imposed, calling them "controversial social initiatives" and stating they are "inappropriate for imposition with the force of law." They also argue the policies violate parents' rights and lack "objective science," which clearly indicates opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly states "Strongly oppose!!" which directly indicates rejection of the proposed regulation. No supporting reasons or qualifications are provided, but the stance is unambiguous.


The commenter rejects the policy outright with the title "Absolutely not" and the statement "Not good for children," which indicates opposition to adopting the regulation. No supportive or neutral language appears.


The commenter explicitly says "Vehemently oppose" and argues against the policy by claiming it is "harassment and discrimination to punish someone" for using gendered language consistent with their beliefs. The comment rejects the regulation’s approach to transgender identity and pronoun use.


The comment explicitly says "Strongly oppose" and repeats "Strongly oppose," which clearly indicates rejection of the proposed regulation. No supporting or neutral language is present.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy with "NO NO NO" and says "this too extreme," indicating opposition to adoption as written. Although they support "anti-harassment," they object to the regulation's treatment of teachers and pronoun enforcement, asking to "Protect teachers" and emphasizing parental notification concerns.


The commenter explicitly says "Oppose this" and argues the policy is "way overstepping" boundaries between schools and parents. The phrase "This is ridiculous!" reinforces rejection of the regulation.


The commenter clearly rejects the policy with the title "Absolutely not" and the statement "Not good for children," indicating opposition to adoption. No supportive or neutral language appears.


The commenter explicitly states, "I am strongly opposed to this!!!" which directly indicates rejection of the proposed regulation. No supporting reasons or qualifications are provided, but the opposition is unambiguous.


The commenter clearly rejects the regulation with the title "Absolutely not" and the statement "Not good for children," which indicates opposition to adoption. No supportive or neutral policy details are provided.


Transgender rights - or non transgender rights

The commenter rejects key parts of the proposed policies, saying transgender rights should not “trample on the rights of others” and opposing bathroom/locker room access by “the opposite sex.” They also oppose participation in sports and any “teaching or reading or discussion of transgender materials” without parental permission, indicating they want the regulation substantially weakened or rejected.


Strong Support from Pediatrician/Child Health Advocate

The commenter explicitly endorses the policy, calling it "essential" and urging VDOE to "stand firm" with "this non-discrimination policy." They argue schools should be "a safe haven for transgender students" and that trans minors should be afforded "every protection," which clearly supports adoption.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose" and argues that the policy is "educational indoctrination." They reject the premise of transgender recognition in schools and say schools should "just stick to educating" core subjects, indicating opposition to the regulation.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy with "A Big NO!!!!!!" and argues against schools implementing it, saying they do not want to "put my child in a position to be violated or raped." They also insist that "It is the job of the parents" and that the school should only teach academics, indicating opposition to the regulation's adoption.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly and Adamantly Support" and ends with "Absolutely support." They also frame the proposal as making school "safe, respectful and educational" for "EVERY child" and say transgender students "deserve the same opportunities."


The commenter explicitly says, "I fully support this proposal and its policies" and describes the policies as "a large step forward." They argue the regulation would create a more supportive environment for trans students, indicating clear approval of adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "Protect the trans community" and argues that "They are human and deserve to be treated as such," which clearly endorses the regulation’s purpose of protecting transgender students. There is no language opposing or questioning the policy.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose" the model policies and concludes, "Do not make this proposal into policy." They argue it violates "religious freedom" and complains that it "imposes a transgender agenda," indicating clear rejection of adoption.


The comment explicitly rejects the policy with the title "Absolutely not" and the statement "Not good for children," indicating opposition to adopting the regulation. It offers no supporting details or alternative proposal, but the overall intent is clearly to oppose the guidance.


The comment explicitly says "Strongly oppose" and repeats "Strongly oppose," which clearly indicates rejection of the proposed regulation. No supporting reasons or qualifications are provided.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support protecting trans kids," which clearly endorses the policy’s protective aims. There is no language indicating opposition or neutrality.


I strongly oppose the transgender policy and transgender education!

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose the transgender policy and transgender education," which directly rejects the proposed regulation. There is no qualifying language or request for modification, only clear opposition.


The commenter clearly rejects the policy with the title "Absolutely not" and the statement "Not good for children," which indicates opposition to adopting the regulation. No supportive or neutral language is present.


The comment explicitly says "Strongly oppose" twice, which clearly indicates rejection of the proposed regulation. No supporting or neutral language is present.


The commenter explicitly labels the comment "Support" and states that "Transgender rights are human rights." They also endorse the policy goals by saying "All kids should feel safe and welcome at school," which aligns with adopting the regulation.


The commenter explicitly labels the comment "SUPPORT" and says "Those who identify as trans should receive support from the government 100%." They also endorse acceptance in schools, stating "Everyone should feel accepted in the academic area."


The commenter explicitly labels the submission "Opposed" and argues against "preferential treatment" for transgender students, saying it is "in no way the job of the school board to enforce." They also object to the policy as favoring "one group of people over any other," indicating rejection of the regulation.


Total support for this model for non-binary and trans students

The commenter explicitly says "Total support for this model" and asks to "Please support our non-binary and trans children." The comment endorses accommodations for transgender and non-binary students and frames the policy as beneficial for their well-being.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, opening with "Strongly disagree!" and arguing that it "will NOT work in a real life setting." They express concern that the regulation would make daughters unsafe in "a locker room or bathroom" and imply it should not be adopted as written.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose this" and argues the policy will "cause more problems in our schools and students than it will help." They also object to transgender students using restrooms with the "opposite gender" and say the change is "completely unfair."


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose" and calls the policy "tyrannical." They also reject the regulation as a "political charade" and say they will not comply with it, indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, saying "STOP THE ABUSE!" and arguing that schools should not keep students' gender identity private, use preferred pronouns, or support transgender students. They frame the guidance as harmful and say they intend to "teach truth and reality" rather than follow it.


The commenter explicitly states, "Strongly against this," which clearly indicates opposition to the proposed regulation. No supporting reasons or qualifications are provided, but the stance is unambiguous.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly support" and states that "Any resources to make school more accessible and safer for our students are appreciated" and that "action is needed" to ensure a safe environment. The comment advocates for removing barriers against the LGBTQIA+ community, which aligns with adopting the regulation.


The commenter criticizes the policy as advancing "a political agenda" and calls it "Shameful!" They argue the document should instead focus on "helping the youth who display gender dysphoria," indicating opposition to the regulation as written rather than support for adoption.


The commenter explicitly states, "I strongly oppose," which directly indicates opposition to the proposed policies. No supporting reasons or qualifications are provided, but the stance is unambiguous.


The commenter explicitly says, "My opposition to this policy" and repeatedly argues the proposal would "cause more trouble in the schools." They object to confidentiality rules, restroom/locker room access, pronoun requirements, overnight trips, and menstrual supplies, framing the policy as harmful and impractical.


The commenter explicitly asks to "Stop the abuse" and says not to allow "those with male hormones" to compete, which rejects the transgender student policy’s inclusion in sex-specific activities. The language about "physically dominate" and calling it "bullying" shows opposition to the regulation as written.


The commenter explicitly says "ABSOLUTE NO! DO NOT SUPPORT" and states "This does little if nothing to bring reform," indicating rejection of the proposed policies. They also argue the policies "pose a real danger to our children" and object to access to "single sex facilities" and decisions made "without a guardian's knowledge."


The commenter explicitly says, "I vote against" and clarifies the target as "that transgender kids can go to school," indicating opposition to the policy’s protections for transgender students. The comment does not request changes; it rejects the policy outright.


The commenter rejects the policy’s accommodation of transgender students, arguing that schools should "ban dressing as the opposite sex" and that "No child is truly a transvestite." The comment explicitly says educators should not "encourage this," indicating opposition to the regulation.


The commenter explicitly signals opposition with the title "Opposed!!" and argues the policy will cause harm: "a whole list of harassment for both sides" and "More people will be bullied." They also warn it could "open up for more sexual harassment," indicating they do not want the regulation adopted.


The commenter explicitly states, "I strongly oppose," which directly indicates rejection of the proposed regulation. No supporting reasons or qualifications are provided, but the stance is unambiguous.


The commenter explicitly asks, "Please do not allow the 'care' for transgender youth" and argues against the policy throughout. They reject transgender identity as valid, calling it "insanity" and insisting "A transgender woman is not an actual woman" and "A transgender man is not an actual man," which indicates opposition to the regulation.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy with the title "Absolutely not" and adds "Not good for children," indicating opposition to adoption. No supportive or neutral language appears.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support this guidance" and repeatedly reinforces approval with phrases like "I cannot overemphasize how much I support these mesures." They argue the policy would "protect trans students and their mental health" and "go a long way towards protecting some of our most vulnerable students."


The comment explicitly says "strongly oppose," which clearly indicates rejection of the proposed regulation. No supporting reasons or qualifications are provided, but the stance is unambiguous.


The commenter explicitly says, "Opposed to this policy," which directly states rejection. The explanation that it "goes beyond protection of transgender students rights" indicates they believe the policy is too expansive and should not be adopted as written.


The commenter explicitly says they are "Strongly and Biblically against" the policy and argues it is "not moral" and "not scientific." They also frame the policy as harmful, saying it "sets children up for failure" and calling it "destructive behavior," which indicates clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter clearly rejects the policy with the title "Absolutely not" and the statement "Not good for children," which indicates opposition to adopting the regulation. No supportive or neutral language is present.


STRONGLY OPPOSE!!! This is wrong on so many levels.

The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY OPPOSE!!!" and repeatedly argues against the policy as "wrong on so many levels" and "completely demented." They object to bathroom/locker room access, parental consent, and claim it takes away "our rights as parents" and "freedom of speech and freedom of religion."


The comment only says "strongly disagree" without stating what aspect of the proposed regulation it rejects or why. Because it lacks any reference to the policy itself, it is too vague to reliably classify as support or oppose.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Opposed" and argues the VDOE "has gone far beyond the path the General Assembly prescribed." They repeatedly reject the policies, saying schools should not accommodate them and that the regulations "infringe the First Amendment rights of parents."


The commenter explicitly praises the policy effort: "Way to go, Virginia! You're leading the way for all of us." They also urge action with "Please follow through on this action" and frame it as life-saving: "You could save lives!"


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY OPPOSE" and commands, "Do not do this," which clearly rejects the regulation. The phrase "it is tyranny" shows opposition to adoption rather than support for any changes.


Support for the proposed guidance document

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support The Model Policies for the Treatment of Transgender Students in Virginia’s Public Schools Guidance Document." They also endorse the goal of a "safe, inclusive environment" for all students, indicating approval of adoption.


Absolutely not! And all of you that agree are disgusting.

The commenter explicitly rejects the policy with "Absolutely not!" and says "This is just going to allow more of this bs," indicating opposition to adoption. They argue it would make bathrooms less safe and reference personal experiences of assault and harassment as the basis for their objection.


The commenter explicitly says, "i vote ‘ no’," which clearly indicates opposition to the proposed regulation. No supporting reasons or qualifications are provided, but the rejection is unambiguous.


NO. This is wrong. Focus on getting kids back into school!

The commenter explicitly rejects the policy with "NO. This is wrong" and says lawmakers should "forget about the private agendas of fringe groups." They argue the legislature should instead focus on "getting kids back into school" and recovering lost learning, indicating opposition to adopting this regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "Support trans Rights!" and frames the policy as beneficial, stating that "Using the correct pronouns for trans kids is suicide prevention!" This clearly endorses the regulation’s protections for transgender students.


The commenter explicitly says "Absolutely opposed" and urges, "Stop trying to bend the world to suit your Marxist narrative," which clearly rejects the proposed transgender student policies. The reference to "biological markers" indicates opposition to the regulation's treatment of transgender students.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly support" and calls the policy "long overdue." They further endorse the policy’s goals, saying it can "go a long way in ending any bullying and encouraging empathy and inclusiveness."


The commenter explicitly says, "Strongly opposed this!" and adds that it is "Against every moral and family value," which clearly rejects the regulation. There is no indication of support or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY OPPOSE" and "Strongly oppose!" They also reject the policy as "ridiculous" and threaten to "homeschool if this passes," indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I fully support this step towards safety for all" and calls the policy "a good start." They also argue that "Steps are needed to ensure protection, support, and respect for the transgender community," which clearly endorses adoption of the regulation.


Support Transgender students and respect their parents- OPPOSE this Bill.

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose this proposed regulation" and repeats "OPPOSE this Bill." Although they express support for transgender students, they object to the policy because they believe it would involve "deceiving their parents" and "giving children the option to choose their gender."


The commenter explicitly says "Oppose oppose!" and argues against allowing "boys who claim to be 'girls' in with girls," which directly rejects the proposed transgender student policies. The language "This is wrong" and "You must not care about women/girls" shows clear opposition rather than a request for modification.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly support!" and endorses "Creating protections for transgender and non-binary students." This clearly indicates approval of the proposed policies.


As a child, around 8 years old, I struggled for approximately 5 years with strong desires to be a

The commenter explicitly says, "it should not be approved," and repeatedly argues the policy is "of great concern" and "destructive." They object to its support for gender exploration, compelled speech, and restroom/locker room access, framing it as harmful to children and to free speech.


The commenter explicitly states "Strongly Against" and repeats "Against," indicating clear opposition to the proposed regulation. No supporting or qualifying language is provided.


The commenter explicitly says "OPPOSE!" and rejects the policy as "this disgusting idea". They argue against the underlying premise that a child can "decide to be a boy one day girl the next," indicating they do not want the regulation adopted.


The commenter explicitly states "STRONGLY OPPOSED!!!" to the proposed transgender student policies, which is a clear rejection of adoption. No supporting reasons or qualifications are provided.


The commenter explicitly endorses transgender rights and the policy’s underlying goals, saying "TRANS RIGHTS ARE HUMAN RIGHTS" and calling for "a wave of equality." Although the comment attacks opponents, its clear intent is to support the regulation rather than reject it.


The comment explicitly says "Strongly oppose," which clearly indicates rejection of the proposed regulation. No supporting or qualifying language is provided.


The commenter explicitly says, "I disagree with any sports program that allows transgendered Females ... to compete against biological females" and argues this is "not fair". They propose a narrower alternative—separate competition by sex and transgender athletes in contact sports at puberty—which indicates opposition to the policy as written, at least regarding sports participation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose this legislation" and argues it is "not in the best interest of children". They object to transgender students' access to "dressing rooms and bathrooms" and frame the policy as creating safety risks, indicating rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "Oppose" and argues that this policy should not be the priority, stating "THAT should be the #1 priority" instead. The comment redirects attention away from transgender student policies toward broader school performance and safety concerns for minority students.


The commenter explicitly endorses the underlying policy goals, stating "Trans rights are human rights" and praising efforts to "create safe spaces for young people." This indicates clear support for adopting the transgender student policies.


The commenter explicitly states "STRONGLY OPPOSE" and repeats it as the entire body, indicating clear rejection of the proposed regulation. There is no qualifying language suggesting support or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly says "strongly oppose," which clearly indicates rejection of the proposed regulation. No supporting reasons or qualifications are provided.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Oppose" and repeatedly argues against the policy, calling it "in direct violation of parental rights" and saying "Please... implement policies" other than this one. The comment also urges the VDOE not to "affirm" transgender students and says the policy should not be adopted because it conflicts with the writer's religious beliefs and parental authority.


The commenter explicitly says, "I totally disagree with everything this stands for" and "STRONGLY DISAGREE. THIS IS NOT OK," which clearly rejects the proposed policies. The threat to "consider another alternative to school if this is passed" further indicates opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly states, "I strongly oppose this legislation," which directly indicates rejection of the proposed regulation. The title also says "Oppose," reinforcing the same position.


Strong Support - this could save children's lives

The commenter explicitly labels the submission "Strong Support" and says they "appreciate the thorough research and careful consideration" behind the policies. They also argue the policies will make schools more supportive and reduce "anxiety, depression, and suicide among children," which clearly endorses adoption.