The commenter explicitly says "Support trans rights!!" and frames the policy as protection for people who "suffer enough harassment on a daily basis." This indicates clear approval of the regulation’s purpose and likely support for adoption.


The commenter explicitly gives "strong support" and says the measures "will save lives." They also argue that "no child should face... discriminatory action," which clearly endorses the proposed policies protecting transgender students.


The commenter explicitly says "OPPOSE! PROTECT OUR CHILDREN!" and urges officials to "Stop destroying our children!" This is a clear rejection of the proposed transgender student policies, even though the comment is framed in hostile terms.


Strongly support ALL students in Virginia!

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support ALL students in Virginia!" This is a clear endorsement of the policy’s inclusive treatment of students, including transgender students.


The commenter explicitly asks officials to "reject this proposed law" and repeatedly argues the policy is "bad policy" and would harm children, teachers, and families. The comment frames the regulation as coercive and dangerous, citing objections about pronouns, bathrooms, parental rights, and religious conscience.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose this bill," and argues there is "absolutely no reason to have a policy for one specific group of students." They also object to the privacy and family provisions, claiming the policy would "take away a parents rights" and involve "government intervention."


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Support Trans Rights" and endorses protections for transgender students, noting they are "bullied over for no reason." They also state "Trans rights are human rights" and oppose "any sort of transphobia," which clearly supports the regulation's purpose.


The commenter rejects school involvement in transgender student policies, stating that "Schools stay out" and that parents are the "ONE AND ONLY VOICE for THEIR CHILDREN." This indicates opposition to the regulation’s school-based guidance and implementation.


The commenter explicitly says "Support! Support our LGBT youth!" and endorses the underlying purpose of the policy by affirming that "Trans people are valid" and "Trans Kids are valid." The comment argues for ending "the culture of shame and fear," indicating approval of protections for transgender students.


The commenter explicitly says "STONGLY OPPOSE" and repeatedly argues the policy should not be adopted, claiming it takes away "parental rights" and would allow "predators" and "bullies" access to children. They also say the VDOE "need[s] to get out of the business," indicating rejection of the regulation.


The commenter says "The government should not be allowing other people to make or influence decisions so personally connected," which اعتراضs to outside influence over parents' decisions regarding transgender students. The title "Opposed" and emphasis that parents should "nurture and raise their child as they see fit" indicate rejection of the proposed policies.


Trans teens are one of the most high-risk groups for suicide. Protect them.

The commenter explicitly urges protection for trans students, saying "Protect them" and arguing that policies should ensure they can use bathrooms "without fear of harassment." The comment supports the regulation’s goals of preventing bullying, harassment, and discrimination against transgender students.


The commenter explicitly says the legislation "should NOT be adopted" and calls it "completely out of line." They also argue it ignores parental rights and raises safety concerns about bathroom/locker room access and "sexual assault issues."


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly OPPOSE" and argues the policy is "incredibly irresponsible". They reject school involvement in transgender-related guidance, saying it should be a matter for "parent, child, possibly a doctor - never the school system."


The commenter says they "strongly oppose the proposed transgender policies" and states that it "goes too far." Although they suggest VDOE should revise it to protect transgender individuals' rights, the overall position is opposition to the proposal as written.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose" and argues the guidelines are "absurdity," especially regarding "participation of male students in female athletic activities." They also state the policy will "likely hurt more students than it will help," indicating rejection of the regulation.


The comment explicitly says "Support transgender students," which clearly endorses the regulation’s purpose and implementation. The title repeats the same position: "Support trans students."


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY SUPPORT" and argues that the policy would help protect "trans kids" from discrimination and hatred in schools. They frame the regulation as a needed safeguard, saying it "might create one more protective factor" for vulnerable students.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly support" and argues that the policies are "essential" for "safe and healthy school climates" for transgender students. They also state the policies would have improved their own school experience, indicating clear approval of adoption.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose transgender policy" and objects to "locker room/bathroom access" and schools "not honoring parents wishes for children under 18." This is a clear rejection of the proposed policy rather than a request for modification.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY SUPPORT" and asks to "support trans kids" and "let them have a normal school experience." They also emphasize that "every kid deserves to feel safe and welcomed in school," which clearly endorses the regulation's goals.


The title "Absolutely Not" strongly signals rejection of the proposed policies. The body, "Please consider other options," indicates the commenter does not want this regulation adopted as written and prefers alternatives.


The commenter explicitly says, "I don’t feel this is a good option to do in our school systems," and the title, "Against transgender bathroom plans for schools," indicates opposition to the policy. Although brief, the comment clearly rejects the proposed transgender student guidance.


The commenter explicitly says, "i strongly support these measures" and urges others to "make space for trans students." They also explain the policy benefit, stating it will help trans students feel welcomed and that "every student must feel welcomed" to learn and grow.


The commenter explicitly says "Trans rights are human rights," which clearly endorses the regulation’s protections for transgender students. The rest of the comment defends those rights and rejects religious objections, indicating support rather than opposition.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose" and argues the policy "goes against parent's right". They also reject school support for transgender students, saying parents should be notified and opposing shared restroom/changing facilities, which indicates clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter clearly rejects the policy, calling it "THIS IS RIDICULOUS" and objecting to the idea that parents could be accused of abuse for buying their daughter dresses. The demand to "Let the PARENTS be PARENTS!!!!!!!!" indicates opposition to the transgender student guidance and its implications for parental authority and gender-related accommodations.


Stop social engineering our public schools

The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, calling it "a very sick bill" and saying "Leave them alone." They argue it will "make matters worst" and frame it as harmful "social engineering" in schools.


The commenter explicitly says "Oppose" and rejects the policy with "No way i'm letting a boy in the locker room with my 14 year old daughter," indicating they do not want the regulation adopted. The concern is specifically about transgender student access to sex-specific facilities.


The commenter explicitly states "Strongly oppose," which directly indicates opposition to adopting the proposed regulation. No additional reasoning or qualifications are provided.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY SUPPORT" and asks to "Please support this guidance." They also describe the policy as removing barriers and improving opportunities for trans people, indicating clear approval of adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support this policy," and frames the regulation as helpful for vulnerable students: "This measure would help tremendously." The comment endorses protections for "Trans and NB Students" and cites bullying and mental health risks as reasons for adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support this guidance document" and explains it will "protect trans and queer students in Virginia." They also express approval of the policy's purpose by saying trans students deserve "respect and dignity."


The commenter explicitly says, "I support the guidance" and gives a reason favoring adoption: "all students deserve to feel safe, welcome, and supported." This is a clear endorsement of the regulation as proposed.


The comment explicitly says "STRONGLY OPPOSE" and appears to object to the policy's bathroom provisions with "The same bath rooms are you serious." This indicates rejection of the regulation, especially regarding shared restroom access.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY OPPOSE" and frames the policy as encouraging children "to lie," indicating rejection of the regulation. The comment does not request changes; it argues against the policy on parental communication grounds.


The commenter explicitly says "Oppose" and asks to "look at other options," indicating they do not want the policy adopted as written. The phrase "this sounds like far left agenda" is a clear rejection of the regulation's substance.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Support!" and states that "this is necessary for youth to better live comfortably and safely," which clearly endorses adoption of the policy. The mention of trans friends and family reinforces support for the regulation's purpose.


The commenter explicitly says, "I am in proud support of trans students" and hopes the policy "paves the way" for a "safe, welcoming, caring, and open place" in schools. The comment endorses the regulation’s goals of support and inclusion for transgender students.


The comment explicitly says "Support!" which directly endorses the proposed regulation. There is no qualifying language suggesting opposition or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support the guidance" and explains that "all students deserve to be in a safe and welcoming environment." The rest of the comment reinforces approval by emphasizing love, respect, and kindness for transgender students.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY OPPOSE" and calls the policy "Poison like this is dangerous," which clearly rejects the regulation. There is no indication of support or a neutral question/comment.


The commenter explicitly labels the proposal "Strongly Oppose" and repeatedly argues it "goes way beyond prevention" and is "not safe for our children." They object to school affirmation of transgender students, privacy provisions, parental notification limits, and bathroom/locker room access, indicating clear rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly labels the submission "Against" and asks, "What about a law to protect children & parents from being subjected to this against their will," which indicates opposition to the transgender student policies. The phrasing suggests the commenter wants the regulation rejected or substantially limited rather than adopted.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly OPPOSE!!" and argues that the policy is "government ... overstepping" and "infringing on unsafe standards for our children." The religious citation and references to "family MORALS and values" indicate rejection of the regulation rather than a request for modification.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY OPPOSE" and argues that "Transgender is not a sex and should not be recognized as such," indicating rejection of the proposed policies. The comment also says the idea "needs to change" and "should not exist here either," which clearly opposes adoption.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Oppose" and ends with "DO NOT pass this legislation." They argue the policy would "indoctrinate children with an ideology" and is not the role of schools or government, indicating clear rejection of the regulation.


The commenter rejects the policy outright, using the title "NO WAY" and stating "This doesn't seem right on any level," which signals opposition rather than a request for clarification or neutral feedback. No supportive language or constructive amendments are offered.


Stand for the vulnerable of our state! Support! Support! Support!

The commenter explicitly says "Support! Support! Support!" and asks to "protect trans people," which clearly endorses the proposed transgender student policies. The language indicates approval rather than a request to weaken or reject the regulation.


Strongly Support as an education professional

The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Support" and argues that the policy is "the bare minimum" for school districts. They also call for "more detailed strategies" in district policies, indicating support for adoption with possible strengthening rather than rejection.


The commenter clearly rejects the policy, opening with "Absolutely NOT!!" and calling it a "BAD idea." The statement "Biological males, are male. Biological females, are females!" indicates opposition to the regulation's treatment of transgender students.


The commenter says they are "strongly against any teachings on this subject" for their grandchildren, which directly rejects the proposed transgender-student policies. Although they add that they do not want anyone mistreated, the overall message is opposition to the regulation and its school implementation.


The commenter rejects the policy outright with the title "Absolutely Not" and says it is "to pushy on the majority," indicating opposition to adoption. The phrase "other options should be considered" suggests they want this proposal rejected or substantially changed rather than approved as written.


The comment says "all children deserve protection," which aligns with the regulation’s goal of creating a "safe and supportive learning environment" and protecting students from discrimination and harassment. Although brief, it reads as an endorsement of the policy’s protective intent rather than opposition.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose" and asks, "Please do not pass this legislation." They argue it is "not in the best interest of our children" and object to parents not being involved, indicating rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose this lunacy!" and objects to "allowing boys in her locker room or restroom," indicating rejection of the proposed transgender student policies. The language shows clear opposition to the regulation as written.


Protections and Support Needed for Transgender and non-binary students

The commenter explicitly says, "I'm writing to support protections for transgender and non-binary students in all of Virginia's public schools." They further endorse the policy goal by stating that protections will help create "a safe place to learn and succeed" and "a positive learning environment for everyone."


The commenter explicitly says "STONGLY DISAGREE" and argues the BOE should not be "involved in or promoting" the policy. They oppose allowing transgender students access to sex-specific bathrooms and call for separate facilities instead, indicating rejection of the regulation as written.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY OPPOSED" and argues that it is "incredibly irresponsible" to promote "gender confusion" in public schools. They also state that "The school system should never be involved in this type of thing," indicating rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support this bill" and the title reads "Strongly Support! Support trans youth!" They argue the policy is needed "for the health and wellbeing of our trans children" and criticize opponents, indicating clear approval of adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "Do not pass!!" and urges, "Do not allow them to use any private facility... that does not align with their biological gender," which rejects the proposed policies. The comment frames the regulation as dangerous, stating it will "put our children (especially our girls) in danger."


The commenter explicitly says, "STRONGLY SUPPORT this policy!" and repeatedly endorses its provisions, including "consistent school pronoun use," "restroom/locker use" aligned with gender identity, and "LGBTQ2+ inclusive professional development." The comment frames the policy as necessary to "protect trans youth," indicating clear approval of adoption.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose" and calls the policy "child abuse," indicating clear rejection of the regulation. The recommendation to "Homeschool your children" and criticism of "indoctrination" in public education further show opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, calling it "a sham" that "does not help any child" and urging that it not be enacted. They argue it would "increase[] division," harm other students' rights, and lead to negative outcomes if implemented.


The commenter explicitly endorses the policy with phrases like "Strongly Support!" and "Support trans rights for they are human rights." They argue against objections to transgender inclusion in schools and facilities, indicating approval of the regulation as written.


STRONGLY SUPPORT PROPOSED TRANSGENDER GUIDELINES

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


The commenter explicitly says, "I see no need for this at all" and titles the comment "Oppose Strongly!!" They also reject the policy’s purpose by saying school is "not about anyone's identity nor sexuality" and calling it "perverted and vile."


The commenter clearly rejects the policy, saying the department is "catering to the few at the expense of far too many" and urging parents to make "correct decisions" about children's education. The comment frames the guidance as contrary to "biblical correctness" and expresses opposition to policymakers who "diametrically oppose His directives."


The commenter explicitly says "Absolutely opposed" and argues the policy "can damage a young child" and is "not allowing for a safe and inclusive environment for all students." They also object to privacy and locker room access, saying it "takes away privacy" and discriminates against "conservative and religious families."


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

The commenter explicitly titles the submission "Oppose 'Model Policies for Treatment of Transgender Students in Virginia's Public Schools'" and repeatedly argues the guidance should not be promoted in schools. They object to privacy provisions, gender-affirming care, bathroom access, and sports participation, saying the policies would "ignore" girls' privacy and "effectively end" women's sports.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support the adoption of this Model Policy" and argues that "fully supporting and protecting transgender students is the only moral choice." This is a clear endorsement of the regulation as proposed.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly back this proposal," which directly endorses adoption. They also praise "safe and inclusive learning spaces" and describe the proposal as "incredibly well-researched," indicating clear support for the regulation as written.


The State is the enemy of decency and normalcy

The commenter clearly rejects the policy, asking "Why is the state of Virginia forcing transgender ideology on schoolchildren?" and accusing the state of "brainwashing children." The language is explicitly hostile to the regulation and frames it as harmful and immoral.


Vehemently Disagree: You Are Not My Child’s Parent...I Am

The commenter explicitly says, "I utterly reject the Department of Education’s proposed model regulations" and argues the proposal "violates the First Amendment rights of parents" and "undercuts open and honest conversation between parents and their children." The comment consistently frames the regulation as an infringement on parental rights and asks the DOE not to insert itself into these decisions.


The commenter explicitly opens with "Strongly oppose" and argues the policy is "exceedingly damaging to our children." They urge against "encouraging children to adopt biologically wrong views of gender" and warn of "life-altering consequences," indicating clear rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support this guidance," which directly endorses adoption of the proposed policies. The title "YES!" reinforces the affirmative stance.


The commenter explicitly labels the submission "Opposed" and argues that the policy "weakens the family" by "blocking guidance from parents." They also reject the underlying transgender accommodations, saying "Girls should be safe in a girls restroom" and that "Science text books and our language should not be changed for a chosen group."


STRONGLY OPPOSE! PLEASE, HAVE MORALS FOR GOD’S SAKE, IF NOT THE CHILDREN!

The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY OPPOSE" and repeatedly argues the policy is "morally and ethically wrong." They also reject specific aspects of the proposal, including "compete against males" and "share your bathroom with them," and threaten to leave the state if it is adopted.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY oppose!" and asks the board to "does not pass this rule" and "please don’t do this." They argue the regulation is "sickening," creates "dangerous situations," and "violates parental rights," all of which indicate rejection of the policy.


STRONGLY OPPOSE. This is NOT protecting ALL children. There are ways to protect them all.

The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY OPPOSE" and argues the policy is "removing parents rights" and that the government should not be involved. They also reject allowing transgender students access to bathrooms aligned with gender identity, calling it "non-negotiable" and objecting to pronoun use and school influence on gender identity.


The commenter explicitly says "Oppose!" and argues against introducing "sexuality and gender issues at the elementary school level." They also object to the policy as taking "rights from the parents" and giving them to "the schools/govt," which indicates rejection of the regulation.


Strongly support! Protect trans youth!!!

The commenter explicitly says, "Strongly support this" and repeatedly urges the policy to "Protect trans youth" and "make school a safe place for all children." They also ask to "make the system supportive of trans youth," which clearly endorses adoption of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY SUPPORT" and urges, "Please enact them and help protect our kids." They also praise the policies as "extra precautions" to protect marginalized groups and prevent suicides, indicating clear approval of adoption.


Strongly oppose, agenda hurts children more than it helps.  Plz read this post from a Pediatrician

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose the transgender changes that are being proposed" and repeatedly argues the policy is harmful, calling it "harmful to our children." The comment urges rejection by presenting an article meant to show why the regulation should not be adopted.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose" and repeatedly asks, "Please do not do this!" They argue against transgender student bathroom access and participation in girls' sports, calling it unfair and stressing discomfort and disadvantage for "biological females."


TRANS LIVES MATTER - TRANS RIGHTS ARE HUMAN RIGHTS

The commenter explicitly endorses equal treatment of transgender students, saying "Trans rights are human rights" and urging, "Keep our children safe by TREATING THEM EQUALLY." The comment rejects segregation and supports the policy’s protective intent rather than opposing it.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose this plan" and argues the policy is "nonsense." They also say schools are "undermin[ing] parents and family values," indicating rejection of the regulation rather than support or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose" and argues that "Parents need to be included in this sensitive subject," indicating rejection of the proposed policy as written. The suggestion that transgender bathroom use should be "private" and the appeal to "Use common sense" further signal disagreement with the policy's approach to student facilities and parental involvement.


The commenter explicitly states, "I support the guidance 100%!!!" This is a clear endorsement of adopting the regulation as proposed.


The commenter explicitly says "Oppose" and urges, "Protect our girls!" They argue that "biological females need safe spaces" and object to "biological males in the space," indicating rejection of the transgender student policy on bathroom/changing-room access grounds.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support the guidance" and repeatedly advocates for adoption, calling it "morally just and compassionate." They also frame it as protection for "our students" and "LGBT peers," indicating clear approval of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says the proposal is "NOT okay," that it provides "more protection/coverage for a trans student," and asks that it be "reworked". They object to key provisions on parent notification, bathroom access, and use of staff offices, indicating opposition to the regulation as written.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support" and endorses the policy as a way of "protecting the rights of everyone" and making schools "a safe space for anyone regardless of sex, gender, religion, etc." This is clear approval of the regulation's goals and adoption.


The commenter explicitly says "Strong support! Trans rights are human rights!" and "Protect trans kids!" which clearly endorses the regulation. The rest of the comment attacks opponents, but the policy position is unambiguous support.


The commenter explicitly says, "Please support this policy" and argues that "each and every student feels safe, cared for and supported." They frame the policy as necessary to prevent students from feeling "hurt, unhappy, unsafe and discriminated against," which clearly endorses adoption.


The comment explicitly says "PROTECT TRANS KIDS," which clearly endorses the regulation’s purpose of supporting transgender students. It offers no criticism or request to weaken the policy, only a brief affirmative statement.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose this proposal" and repeats that it is "not the way." They argue it will cause "potential abuse and further stress" and call the policy "shameful," indicating clear rejection rather than support with changes.


The commenter explicitly says the policy "should NOT be implemented" and "This should NOT be implemented." They repeatedly argue it is "harmful," violates parental authority, and should be rejected rather than adopted.


Strongly support. Treat others how you want to be treated.

The commenter explicitly says "Strongly support" and argues that "Treating trans kids with the most basic levels of respect and tolerance saves lives." They also endorse helping transgender children and criticize opposing views, indicating clear support for the proposed policies.


The commenter clearly endorses the policy’s underlying goals, stating that kids "MUST be treated with respect and dignity" and should have "the freedom to be themselves." This is a direct defense of protections for transgender students and an implicit approval of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support this" and frames the policy as promoting "equality, tolerance, and acceptance." They also endorse the underlying purpose by saying society should "accept and love our neighbor."


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY OPPOSE" and argues the policy would make it "INCREDIBLY EASY for predators" and prevent adults from protecting children. This is a clear rejection of the proposed transgender student policies.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly support" and urges officials to "implement these policies." They argue the guidelines are "critical" for students' health and frame opposition as "pro-discrimination," indicating clear approval of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I fully support this guidance" and repeatedly urges, "PROTECT TRANS KIDS" and "Make their spaces safer." The comment argues the policy is needed to prevent discrimination and ensure safety, which is clear support for adoption.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY SUPPORT" and thanks the agency for "putting forth this legislation" while urging that it "make it happen." The body also endorses the policy’s purpose, stating that "Everyone deserves respect and the right to govern their own body."


Concern for Model Policy on Treatment of Transgender Student

The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose this proposed Model Guidance" and argues it will "create more problems than it solves." They object to bathroom/locker access, girls' sports impacts, and say it is "contrary to parental rights," all indicating rejection of the policy.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support this!" and adds that "Trans students need support and protection in their schools," which clearly endorses adoption of the policy. There is no indication of opposition or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support this policy and trans kids" and adds that "Supporting their rights is critical." This is a clear endorsement of the regulation and its purpose.


TRANS RIGHTS ARE HUMAN RIGHTS. I fully support!!

The commenter explicitly says, "I fully support!!" and repeatedly endorses the policy goals, stating that schools should be "safe and supportive" for trans people. They also affirm protections against "bullying/harassment" for trans students and staff, indicating clear support for adoption of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "Support our students!" and frames the regulation as protecting "Trans and non-binary students" from bullying and discrimination. The comment endorses the policy's purpose of supporting transgender students and reducing harm.


Absolutely oppose this wicked agenda!  Bad for everyone!!!

The commenter explicitly says, "I absolutely oppose this agenda" and "This MUST not go on!" indicating clear rejection of the proposed policies. The language also calls it a "wicked agenda" and says it will "cause all kinds of evil to flourish," reinforcing opposition.


The commenter explicitly says, "Please support this bill" and argues that "passing this bill should be a no-brainer." The comment frames the policy as necessary to protect trans students and improve mental health outcomes.


The commenter explicitly says, "Fully support as an essential step" and "Support trans kids," which clearly endorses adoption of the policy. There is no indication of opposition or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Oppose" and describes the regulations as "harmful to children" and "injurious to parent-child relationships." They further argue the policies "intentionally remove parents" from their children's lives, which clearly rejects adoption of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support this legislation" and repeatedly endorses the policy goals, including making sure children "feel safe and loved." The comment argues against treating gender nonconforming students as "pariahs" and supports the regulation's approach to transgender students in schools.


The comment explicitly says "Vote absolutely not!", which is a clear rejection of the proposed regulation. The rest of the message does not add support or nuance, only a general plea to "focus on EFUCATION" and children being "the future of this nation."


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose" and describes the policy as "a blatant attack on the family." They argue it lets kids "go against their parents" and says it is "pushing the agenda against the family," which clearly rejects adoption of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly endorses the guidance, saying schools should be places where trans youth feel comfortable and that teachers should have "guidelines for handling specific issues related to trans students." They also praise the document as "evidence-based" and argue it provides a "win-win for everyone," while urging readers not to be swayed by "anti-trans rhetoric."


The commenter explicitly says, "i strongly disagree with this" and repeats that "this is NOT right," indicating clear opposition to the proposed transgender student policies. They also object on religious grounds and specifically reject application to "elementary school kids" and "6-12th" grades.


The commenter explicitly says, "I VOTE NO!" and "I object to these Bills!" They also urge, "Do not do this!" and threaten to homeschool if the policy is adopted, indicating clear opposition to the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY SUPPORT" and argues that "Trans youth need our support!" They clearly endorse the regulation and frame opposition as harmful, calling for a "community of love, tolerance and support."


This is so wrong on so many levels. /Transgender Policy

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


The commenter explicitly endorses the policy, saying it "appears to give more support and opportunities" and concluding, "This is a step in the right direction." They also urge, "Let's NORMALIZE acceptance!!" and "Teach love, not hate," which clearly supports adoption of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "strongly oppose," which directly states opposition to the proposed policies. The follow-up phrase "Agree- focus on education" suggests they want schools to prioritize academics instead of adopting these transgender student policies.


The commenter explicitly urges approval and protection, saying "Approve, Support, Protect" and "Protect children every time." The comment rejects opposition as "bigoted misunderstanding," indicating clear support for the regulation's protections for transgender students.


The commenter explicitly gives "Strong support for VDOE Trans and Non-Binary Student Protection" and says "They need these protections right now." The body argues the policies are necessary to protect trans and non-binary youth from harassment and to create a "more safe and inclusive space."


The commenter explicitly says, "Strongly oppose any transgender discussions in public schools" and asks to "remove any transgender discussions from public schools" and "do not approve any legislation otherwise." This is a clear rejection of the proposed policies and a request that they not be adopted.


The comment explicitly states "STRONGLY OPPOSE" and provides no qualifying language or support for the regulation. This is a clear rejection of the proposed policies.


The commenter clearly endorses protections for transgender students, stating that "Their lives MATTER" and that "Their education shouldn’t be harmed just because of how they identify." The comment also criticizes opponents of the policy and urges that "We have to be better and DO BETTER," indicating support for adoption of the regulation.


Vote no! Extremely concerned about this proposed legislation.

The commenter explicitly says, "Vote no!" and "I do however strongly oppose this bill in it's entirety." They raise multiple objections, including concerns about "overnight school trips," teachers' rights and beliefs, and "parental rights," while only offering a limited alternative about private bathrooms.


The commenter explicitly says the policy is "absolutely disgusting and unnatural" and that "we should not be normalizing it at all," which clearly rejects the regulation. The religious framing (“That is not how God made us”) further indicates opposition to the transgender student policies.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY SUPPORT" and "I strongly support this guidance." They also explain that the policy would help create "a welcoming and safe school environment" for trans youth facing discrimination.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly support" and adds a rationale that "spaces become safe for Trans Kids" and therefore "safer for ALL people," which clearly endorses adoption of the policy. There is no indication of opposition or neutrality.


STRONGLY OPPOSE TRANSGENDER PROPOSED POLICIES. These policies have NO business in our schools!

The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY OPPOSE TRANSGENDER PROPOSED POLICIES" and repeats that the policies have "NO business in our school systems." They argue the policies threaten student safety, violate parental rights, and fail to accommodate religious objections, all of which indicate rejection of the regulation.


Strongly support these evidence-based policies that make schools safer and more inclusive

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support this admirable, well-researched, and evidence-based proposal" and argues the policy would "protect previously vulnerable students" and create "safer, more inclusive learning environments." The comment endorses adoption as-is and frames the policies as beneficial for student safety and inclusion.


The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose this transgender policy" and argues it would "take too much power from parents/guardians" and "cause more harm in the long run." These statements clearly reject adoption of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I fully support any legislation that protects and legitimizes trans youth" and urges the state to "be explicit in its guarantee of basic human rights to ALL." This is a clear endorsement of the proposed policies, not a request for weakening or rejection.


STRONGLY Oppose, gender is a FAMILY matter, no school or teacher has right to deal with this issue.

The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY OPPOSE" and argues that "gender is a FAMILY matter," indicating rejection of the proposed policies. They object to schools handling the issue and to schools potentially withholding information from parents, which is a direct opposition to the regulation's approach.


The commenter explicitly says "OPPOSE USURPATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS" and calls the proposed privacy/confidentiality policy "a direct usurpation of parental rights." They argue the policy should not hide a student's gender identity from parents and say schools should not "harbor" children from parents, indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter rejects government involvement in this area, saying they do not want "the government to enforce their ideas on us." In context of a regulation on transgender student treatment, this indicates opposition to the proposed policies rather than support or a neutral question.


The commenter explicitly says, "I’m proud to support this guidance" and argues it would help schools "provide a safe and inclusive educational experience for all students." The comment endorses the policy as a way to equip schools with needed procedures, especially for "our LGBT youth."


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly support" the guidance and praises it as helping the state move toward "greater inclusion and support for ALL students." This is a clear endorsement of adopting the regulation.


The commenter explicitly endorses the policy, saying "Trans kids matter- protect their right to learn and thrive!" and praising Virginia for fostering "a system that sets the bar for equality." They argue the policies would help trans students "exist but thrive safely in schools," which clearly supports adoption.


The commenter explicitly titles the submission "Strongly Oppose" and argues there is "no justification to impose changes". They also say the policy is "completely inappropriate" and frame it as harmful to "the rest of the children in the class," indicating rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly support!!" and states that the policy is "vital" to the goal of protecting children. The body repeatedly endorses the policy’s purpose, saying it should "support and protect all children" and provide "strong, reassuring, and reliable" protection.


The commenter explicitly says, "Oppose new policies," and repeatedly rejects the regulation, stating they will "pull my children out of public schools" and "file a law suit everyday against the schools" if it is implemented. They argue the policies are harmful and call them "child abuse," showing clear opposition to adoption.


in support of protections for transgender and non-binary students!

The commenter explicitly says, "I support this guidance" and endorses protections so students can be in a "safe, welcoming and inclusive" school environment. The comment also rejects opposition based on religion, indicating clear approval of the regulation.


TRANSGENDER RIGHTS ARE HUMAN RIGHTS. People who think differently are selfish.

The commenter explicitly endorses transgender rights, stating "TRANSGENDER RIGHTS ARE HUMAN RIGHTS" and defending trans students' needs. The language criticizes opponents of the policy, indicating support for the regulation's purpose rather than opposition.


The commenter explicitly labels the submission "Strongly Support" and states that "Trans kids deserve dignity and respect," which clearly endorses the regulation's purpose. There is no language opposing or questioning the policy.


I strongly disagree with this bill and the flawed reasoning on which it is based. It’ll harm kids!!

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly disagree with this bill" and calls the reasoning "flawed." The statement "It’ll harm kids!!" indicates opposition to adoption of the policy.


Strongly in favor, trans kids deserve protection

The commenter explicitly says "Strongly in favor" and argues that "these guidelines could do so much to help" trans children. They also urge, "Support trans kids," indicating clear approval of adopting the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support" the model policies and argues they are "vital policy changes" that should be implemented. They also frame the proposal as protecting transgender students' rights and improving youth health, which clearly endorses adoption.


The commenter explicitly says "100% SUPPORT OUR TRANS/NON BINARY KIDS" and asks to "add more inclusive protections" and "ensure ALL youth are well supported." This clearly endorses the regulation and even urges stronger protections rather than weakening it.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose" and argues that parents, not the government or schools, should be responsible for teaching children moral values. This indicates opposition to the proposed transgender student policies as a school/government role in child upbringing.


THIS MUST HAPPEN!!! Trans kids need to be protected and treated as equals!

The commenter explicitly endorses the policy, saying "THIS MUST HAPPEN!!!" and that "Trans kids deserve the same protections other kids get." The phrase "This is ludicrous that it’s even up for debate!" reinforces strong support for adoption.


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


The commenter rejects the policy’s framing of transgender students as an "agenda" and argues for teaching "the truth" about biological sex instead. Although they mention "compassionate support," the overall message opposes the regulation’s transgender-inclusive approach and favors a different, more restrictive viewpoint.


The commenter explicitly says, "I fully support the health and well-being of transgender students," which clearly endorses the policy’s purpose. The title, "Please show students love and affirmation of who they are," further indicates approval of the regulation’s supportive approach.


Strongly Support Transgender Discussions In School

The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Support" and argues that "Having these discussions can only benefit students," which clearly endorses the regulation’s transgender-related school guidance. The comment also affirms that "trans people exist and are valid" and that LGBT+ topics belong in schools, indicating support rather than opposition.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose to this" and argues that schools should not "be opening to help or guide" gender discussions. They also say the policy will "open major confusion and issues for children," indicating rejection of the regulation.


STRONG SUPPORT- all children need a safe environment!

The commenter explicitly says they are in "FULL SUPPORT" and calls the policy "essential" for providing "a safe and supportive place" for transgender and nonbinary students. They also argue schools should "support and protect these children" and endorse bathroom/locker room access by gender identity.


Oppose Model Transgender Policy see comments

The commenter explicitly titles the submission "Oppose Model Transgender Policy" and repeatedly argues against key provisions, including restroom/locker room access, school notification rules, and participation in female sports. They state the policy would allow "a male to use this policy to gain access to a female locker room" and that "Allowing a male to participate in female sports is cheating and should not be allowed."


The commenter explicitly says, "I am opposed to the proposed gender policy" and objects that it "allows for deception of parents." They also frame the policy as potentially harmful to parental communication and student expression, indicating rejection of the regulation rather than support for it.


The commenter explicitly labels the proposal "Oppose" and argues against allowing "boys to share a shower n locker room with our 12 yr old daughter." They ask for separate sex-specific spaces and say "Do not take away pur childrens innocence," indicating rejection of the policy as written.


The commenter explicitly says "Absolutely support!!!!" and argues that "Trans people deserve the same rights as everyone else." This is a clear endorsement of the proposed policies.


The commenter says, "I strongly disagree with the bill" and argues it should not be handled by schools: "not the school system." This clearly rejects the proposed policies rather than supporting them with changes.


Support--Trans Students Have a Right to feel Safe in School

The commenter explicitly labels the submission "Support" and states that "This policy would ensure that our trans students have the chance to excel." They argue the policy helps students feel "safe and comfortable" and protects them from "harassment or violence," which clearly endorses adoption.


Transgender is a mental health issue.  Offer compassionate support towards true freedom

The commenter rejects the premise of the policy by framing transgender identity as a "mental health issue" and saying children should be taught "the real truth" about transgender struggles. The comment argues against affirming transgender students and instead promotes a corrective, pathologizing view, which indicates opposition to the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support" and frames the policy as part of "achieving equal rights for all people, including trans people." This is a clear endorsement of the regulation's purpose and adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "Vote no! Do not support bill," which clearly rejects the proposed regulation. There is no qualifying language or request for changes, just direct opposition.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support guidance for students and educators to accept and support trans youth in schools," which directly endorses the proposed policies. They also frame schools as needing to be "a safe place" and express hope that children can "live their truth safely in school," reinforcing approval of the regulation's purpose.


The commenter explicitly says, "support the guidance" and repeats "I support this guidance". They frame it as necessary for a "safe and welcoming" school environment for all students, indicating approval of adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do not support it," indicating opposition to the proposed policies. They argue that "school legislation" on gender is unnecessary and dismiss the bullying rationale as "a distraction," while preferring general anti-bullying measures instead.


The commenter explicitly says, "I am in support of programs promoting safe learning environments for all student" and clarifies that this includes transgender, non-binary, and LGBTQ students. This is a clear endorsement of the regulation’s goals and protections.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly support" and adds that "this support for our students is greatly needed." This is a clear endorsement of the proposed policies.


The commenter explicitly says "Vote NO!!!" and "strongly disagree!!!," which clearly indicates opposition to adopting the proposed regulation. No supporting reasons or qualifications are provided, but the stance is unambiguous.


The commenter explicitly argues against discrimination based on gender identity, stating, "There is no logical reason why someone should be discriminated against because of their gender, or non gender." This aligns with supporting the proposed transgender student protections and nondiscrimination policies.


The commenter clearly rejects the policy, asking rhetorically, "Who in their right minds thinks it's cool to allow confused boys into the girls locker rooms/bathrooms" and urging, "Don't make everyone else have to pretend." They also explicitly oppose recognizing transgender identities, saying there are "only TWO" genders and calling it a "mental illness."