The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Support" and states that the guidance is "absolutely necessary." They also endorse its purpose by saying all children, including the LGBTQ community, deserve to feel safe and that discrimination should not be tolerated.


I do Not Agree to any of this, outrageous

The commenter explicitly rejects the policy: "I do Not Agree to any of this" and says it "needs to be stopped immediately." The comment also objects on parental rights and religious grounds, indicating opposition to adoption of the regulation.


Oppose threatening children to be removed from home if they don’t comply with transgender pronouns.

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose" the policy language and objects to "threats used to make sure children and parents comply with transgender pronouns." They also argue the document should be rethought and call it "ridiculous," indicating clear rejection of the regulation.


Strongly support. Trans kids need support and protection.

The commenter explicitly says "Strongly support" and states that "trans kids need support and protection." The rest of the comment reinforces approval by expressing that trans kids "deserve all the love, support, and protection in the world."


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose" and argues the policy is "incredibly unacceptable" regarding bathroom access and sports participation for transgender students. They want transgender students kept "separated in sport and bathrooms," which indicates rejection of the regulation's core provisions.


If You Care For Your Students, VOTE YES!

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support this well-researched and evidence-based proposal" and urges, "VOTE YES!" They also argue the policy would "protect previously vulnerable students" and create "safer, more inclusive learning environments," indicating clear approval of adoption.


strongly apposed to this policy. follow the science on covid but ignore it on biology? wake up!

The commenter explicitly says they are "strongly apposed to this policy" and argues that "parents should be the ones to guide their children on these matters," indicating rejection of the proposed transgender student policies. The rhetorical question about "ignore it on biology" reinforces opposition rather than support or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly endorses transgender protections, saying "Protection of those identifying as transgender is imperative" and arguing that teaching acceptance "should not be optional." This clearly supports adopting the proposed policies.


The commenter explicitly argues against the policy, saying affirming transgender identity is "dangerous," that it "creates unsafe environments for biological females," and that "demanding these things does not create" an atmosphere of care. The comment asks for the chance to communicate concerns and does not support adoption of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support trans youth be protected in schools," which clearly endorses the regulation’s purpose. The title "SUPPORT" reinforces that they want the policy adopted.


The commenter explicitly says "Do Not support" and concludes that "as written, this policy seems designed to create more problems than it solves." They also describe it as "a pretty big overreach by the government" and "authoritarian," indicating opposition to adoption of the policy in its current form.


Strongly support. Protect and nurture children as they grow.

The commenter explicitly says "Strongly support" and urges the policy to "Protect and nurture children as they grow." They further endorse allowing children to "feel safe to explore their gender expression," which aligns with adoption of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly praises the policy, saying "I love this" and that students "will be supported no matter who they turn out being." They also endorse the goal of making it easier for "all kids to just be kids," which aligns with adoption of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "Strongly opposed the transgender policy in school," which clearly rejects the proposed regulation. The title "Strongly OPPOSED" reinforces that they want the policy rejected.


The commenter warns "Where does this end?" and asks "Where is your conscience and protection of the young?" in a clearly condemnatory way, indicating rejection of the policy. The reference to "May God help you" and Romans 1 frames the regulation as morally wrong and implies it should not be adopted.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY OPPOSE," "DO NOT mess with Biological science," and "Vehemently Opposed!!" They argue the policy is "not backed by science" and claim it would create "chaos," indicating clear rejection of the regulation rather than support with changes.


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


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

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose the 'Model Policies for the Treatment of Transgender Students in Virginia’s Public Schools.'" They argue the policies would "undercut parents’ involvement," threaten "bodily privacy and safety," and let the state override parents' decisions.


The commenter explicitly says "Stongly opposed" and asks, "Please DO NOT allow the school to discuss topics as transgender". They argue schools should not expose young children to these topics, indicating rejection of the proposed policies.


The commenter explicitly says "NO to transgender policies" and argues the policies should not be adopted because they would let students use "whatever restroom they want" and would force the commenter to act against religious beliefs. They also ask, "Why aren’t my rights being protected?" and say the policies "will prevent me from practicing my beliefs," indicating clear opposition.


The commenter explicitly says "I STRONGLY OPPOSE" and asks to "do not make schools a grand experiment" and "do not force kids aged 6-18 to give up personal protections and beliefs." Although they support stopping bullying and harassment, the overall position is against the regulation as written.


The commenter explicitly says "Please register my concern about the upcoming vote on transgender policy in schools" and titles the comment "Strongly opposed to new transgender policy." They argue schools should not address these issues and object to "non-notification" and policies that "take away from our families" and "step into the rights of a family," indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says "FULLY SUPPORT A SUPPORTIVE ENVIRONMENT FOR LGBTQ STUDENTS" and adds that "We should be working on creating a supportive and affirming" environment. This clearly endorses the regulation’s goal of protecting and supporting transgender/LGBTQ students.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY OPPOSE" and "Do NOT adopt this detrimental plan," making their position clear. They argue the policy would cause "increased chaos in schools," violate "parental rights," and harm "student safety and security," all of which indicate rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly support" and thanks the agency for "much needed guidelines to support LGBTQ youth." They also argue the policies will help schools and improve student mental health, indicating approval of the regulation as proposed.


Treatment of Transgender Students in Virginia Schools

The commenter explicitly states, "I strongly support this document," which directly endorses adoption of the proposed regulation. No opposing or qualifying language is included.


The commenter explicitly says, "I am strongly opposed to implementing transgender policies in Virginia public schools," which directly rejects the regulation. The request to "Please respect my parental rights" reinforces opposition to adoption of these policies.


The commenter explicitly says, "we strongly support the equal treatment of all of our young people without discrimination," which clearly endorses the regulation's goal of protecting transgender students from discrimination. No opposing language is present.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose" the policy. The phrase "anti God indoctrination of our children" shows clear rejection of the regulation on ideological grounds.


The commenter explicitly says they have a "disagreement with mandating LGBTQ+ policies as part of public education" and objects to the policies on the grounds that they "encourage lying to parents." This is a clear rejection of the proposed guidance rather than a request for modification.


The commenter clearly rejects the regulation, calling it "stupid and Orwellian," "baloney," and asking whether it is "political pandering" or "stupidity" before answering "Yes to all." They argue the rules are "not honoring anybody or protecting anybody" and describe them as an effort to "break down the culture," indicating strong opposition to adoption.


The commenter asks to "respect the sensitivities of all" and proposes a compromise solution: "Designate all restrooms as male, female and others." That suggests support for accommodating transgender students, though the final sentence also emphasizes concerns about sex-separated restroom access.


The commenter asks to "respect[] the sensitivities of all" and proposes accommodating transgender people by designating restrooms as "male, female and others," which aligns with the regulation's inclusion goals. Although they also emphasize that people who do not want "persons of the other sex at birth" in their restroom have rights, the overall thrust is to support a policy that recognizes transgender access rather than reject the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "Oppose the policy" and repeatedly argues the proposal "goes way beyond prevention" and is "child abuse." They want the regulation rejected because they believe it amounts to "mandatory promotion" of an ideology and is harmful to children.


The commenter explicitly titles the submission "Strongly Oppose Special Treatment of Transgender Students" and says that implementing such policies is "unworkable." They argue the policies would "trample the rights of anyone" and create "fear, bullying, and abuse," indicating rejection of the regulation.


Strongly oppose all the ignorant, uninformed, small minded comments I see here.

The commenter explicitly says, "I support the policy" and describes it as helping "at risk kids" and providing "a healthy safe environment for learning." The title also says they "Strongly oppose" contrary views, reinforcing clear support for adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "Strongly oppose to transgender policy," which clearly indicates rejection of the proposed regulation. No supporting or neutral language is present.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose this recommended proposal," which directly indicates rejection of the regulation. The follow-up comparison to children being able to "emancipate themselves" reinforces a negative view of the policy.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy in the title, writing "Stop The Transgender Indoctrination In Schools," and argues that the model regulations "infringe the First Amendment rights of parents." Although they mention protecting privacy and dignity, the overall thrust is opposition to adoption of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose all proposed policies," which directly rejects the regulation. The title, "Oppose all policies," reinforces that they want the proposal rejected rather than modified.


I strongly and lovingly don’t recommend this policy.

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly and lovingly don’t recommend this policy" and adds, "It’s not a good thing to do," which clearly indicates opposition to adoption. No supporting reasons or requests for modification are provided, but the overall position is plainly against the policy.


The comment is nonsensical and does not clearly address the proposed transgender student policies. Phrases like "UNICORNS ARE REAL CORNS" and "You're a hateful bigot" appear to be mocking or off-topic rather than expressing a discernible position on adoption of the regulation.


The comment is off-topic and does not address the proposed transgender student policies. It contains a nonsensical statement, "SEAHORSES ARE REAL HORSES!", and an insult, but no clear position on adoption of the regulation.


The commenter says schools should not participate in "subverting children with issues not based on facts" and criticizes focusing on gender identity terms like "him, her, z, they, it." This indicates opposition to the transgender student policies rather than support for them.


The comment is nonsensical and appears unrelated to the proposed transgender student policies. It does not express support for or opposition to the regulation; instead it contains an insult and a joke-like statement about "hotdog" and "veterinarian."


The commenter explicitly rejects key parts of the proposal, saying that allowing "biological males into girls' bathrooms and locker rooms" is "absolutely not a safe environment" and calling the policy "overreaching political nonsense." Although they begin by supporting kindness and safety, the overall thrust is to oppose adoption unless it is substantially changed, especially on bathroom access, parental involvement, and CPS reporting.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose this policy" and argues it is not healthy for children or teachers. They also object that "Leaving parents out of the loop" is a "dangerous precedent," indicating rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose this policy" and argues it "should NOT happen." They also object that "Leaving parents out of the loop sets a dangerous precedent," indicating rejection of the regulation as written.


The comment says, "This is absolutely unacceptable!" which clearly expresses rejection of the proposed regulation. It provides no supporting details or alternative suggestions, but the strong negative wording indicates opposition.


Strongly oppose this purposed policy.  Schools shouldn’t be involved in this period.

The commenter explicitly says, "Strongly oppose this purposed policy" and adds that "Schools shouldn’t be involved in this period." They also argue that such matters should be left to parents, indicating rejection of the regulation rather than support or neutrality.


Dangerous policy, keep boys out of the girls room

The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, calling it a "Dangerous policy" and urging to "keep boys out of the girls room." They argue it creates a risk of "sexual harassment" in girls' locker rooms, which shows opposition to adoption of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support transgender students, but oppose this policy" and states that "this policy goes too far because it will cause more harm than good." Although they endorse anti-bullying efforts, the overall position is against adoption of the proposed policy as written.


The commenter rejects the policy’s premise, stating “If your kid has a penis he is a boy... if your kid has a vagina she is a girl” and condemning the idea of a boy using the restroom with his daughter. The comment clearly opposes transgender accommodations in schools and says parents “shouldn’t condone such behavior.”


The comment explicitly rejects the regulation with the title "NO NO AND NO" and the statement "This is absolutely unacceptable." It offers no support or constructive changes, indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter says they are "very upset about these proposals" and calls them unsafe, specifically objecting to boys using girls' restrooms/changing areas. They also say they are "very strongly considering homeschool" if this policy is adopted, which indicates rejection of the regulation.


The comment states "Absolutely not" in response to the proposed regulation, which is a clear rejection. No supporting or qualifying language is provided, so the stance is straightforwardly opposed.


My Gender Identity is literally Hitler. Teachers should call me by my pronoun: "Mien Furher"

The commenter uses extreme sarcasm to mock the proposed transgender student policies, ending with "This all of course is equally as reasonable as the policies proposed." The repeated derogatory language and comparison indicate clear rejection of the regulation.


Policies need to be more moderate. Clearly two extremes voicing opinion here. Find the middle.

The commenter says the policies are "politically too far to the left" and urges a "reasonable middle-ground" instead of going through with them as written. They also warn that adopting them would alienate families from the public school system, indicating opposition to the proposed regulation in its current form.


The commenter explicitly labels the submission "Opposed" and says the guidelines are "too arbitrary and open to manipulation." They further argue implementation would "cause confusion" and "end up harming children," indicating rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly OPPOSE" and states that the policy is "insanity." They also indicate the proposal would keep their children out of public schools, showing clear rejection of the regulation.


new transgender policies- STRONGLY OPPOSE!!

The commenter explicitly says "Strongly OPPOSE!!" and calls the policy "this agenda," indicating clear rejection of the regulation. They argue it will "destroy the innocence of children" and is "abusive to force this agenda," which shows opposition rather than a request for modification.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY OPPOSE," which directly states opposition to the regulation. The body reinforces this by arguing it "will confuse children," indicating a reason for rejecting the policy.


OPPOSE Transgender Indoctrination- Nature and Biology assign our gender. It's SCIENCE.

The commenter explicitly begins with "OPPOSE Transgender Indoctrination" and argues against "promoting" transgender students, saying it adds to children's "confusion." They also object to the policy as giving one group preference, stating schools should be safe "without promoting one segment of the population above others."


Strongly Oppose LBGTQ Legislation & Indoctrination

The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Oppose LBGTQ Legislation" and argues the policy "should not be given one minute of legislative time nor one cent of taxpayer money." The body rejects the premise of transgender protections and calls the LGBTQ agenda "complete lunacy and madness," indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says they "strongly oppose" the policy and characterizes it as "promotion of transgender indoctrination to children in schools," indicating clear rejection of the regulation. There is no request for modification or neutral inquiry, only opposition.


The commenter explicitly says "strongly oppose" and describes the policy as "harmful and pernicious," which clearly indicates rejection of the regulation. There is no qualifying language suggesting support or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose transgender indoctrination in all schools," which clearly rejects the proposed transgender student policies. The phrase "strongly oppose" leaves little ambiguity about their position.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose" and repeatedly asks officials to "do not force gender confusion" and says the policies would create "more problems than benefits." They object to the regulation’s treatment of pronouns, gender identity, and restroom/locker room access, and state their children will not attend public school if it is implemented.


The commenter explicitly says, "I am absolutely opposed to this" and urges that schools should not be "promoting sexual confusion and mental illness." They also call the policy "anti-scientific delusions," indicating clear rejection of the regulation.


Oppose new policies regarding transgender students

The commenter explicitly states "opposition for the proposed policies" and repeatedly argues against adoption, saying the policies "completely disregard scientific facts" and would cause "collateral damage" and "child abuse." The comment urges rejection based on parental rights, biological sex, and mental health concerns.


The commenter explicitly says the state "should not be involved in this issue," which rejects the proposed guidance. Although they acknowledge that "there should be anti-bullying policies," the overall position is opposition to state-level transgender student policies.


The commenter explicitly says "Opposed!" and argues the policy is "too extreme," especially regarding transgender students in sports. They object to a "biological boy" competing with their daughter and emphasize preserving separate women's sports, indicating rejection of the regulation as written.


The commenter explicitly says the policy guidelines have not been "thoroughly assessed" and argues they are "redundant," asking to "stick to providing private restrooms/changing facilities and mental health support without imposing additional regulations." This indicates opposition to the regulation as written, even while acknowledging anti-bullying goals.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, calling it "anti-science" and telling the agency to "Stop doing harm." They argue that transgender youth need "psychological help, not affirmation and confirmation," which indicates opposition to the regulation's approach.


The commenter explicitly says, "I am opposed to these guidelines" and argues they should not be adopted because they "usurp the responsibilites of parents" and create privacy and safety problems. They also object to bathroom and dressing room access, saying it is "a violation of privacy" with "negative consequences particularly on young women."


Read the impressive document!  It educates, not mandates.

The commenter explicitly praises the guidance, saying it "educates, not mandates" and that it "elevates the voices" of transgender youth. They also endorse the policy approach by noting that Virginia leaders "value medical input around health equity for all."


The commenter explicitly says, "Support DOE Transgender Student Protections" and states these protections "are needed and must be fully implemented." This clearly endorses adoption of the regulation.


The commenter says they do not want to be "bullied into allowing something like this to happen" and expresses fear that "if this happens I’m scared they won’t be" safe in school. The final line, "Let me just be safe in school," indicates opposition to the proposed policies as written or in effect.


The commenter explicitly says, "I enthusiastically support the VDOE's new guidelines" and urges "public support for these guidelines." They also explain that the policies would provide clarity, consistency, and safety for transgender students.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support the guidance" and the title adds "Support whole-heartedly!" This is a clear endorsement of adopting the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I fully support the DOE guidance on transgender student protections" and adds that the guidance "makes sense." They also thank the department and describe it as helpful for schools, indicating clear approval of adoption.


The commenter explicitly labels the submission "Opposed!" and argues against a "blanket policy" for transgender students. They suggest only limited exceptions for "a few" cases, indicating rejection of the regulation as written rather than support.


Department of Education Transgender Policy

The commenter explicitly rejects the proposed policies, saying the VDOE has "gone far beyond the path the General Assembly prescribed" and that schools should not be "accommodating" these policies. The comment argues the regulations infringe parental rights and threaten privacy, indicating opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly labels the submission "School Nurse perspective-Opposed" and repeatedly argues that "The Transgender Policy will not help" and that "we are making things worse." They also say schools should "stick to reading, writing, and arithmetic" and that the policy should not be the school's role, indicating rejection of the regulation.


The comment explicitly states, "We oppose," which directly indicates opposition to the proposed regulation. Although the title mentions "abortion change," the body provides the clearest and sufficient position on the transgender policy.


The commenter explicitly says they would "urge that we recognize that these policies" are motivated by a desire to do good and concludes that preserving and affirming the dignity and safety of transgender people "is a good that our democracy is built on." The overall argument defends the policies and warns against discrimination, indicating clear support for adoption.


Model policy for treatment of transgender students

The commenter says, "I am strongly opposed to this model policy" and repeatedly argues it will "create more harm than good." They also object that it will increase "bureaucracy," "litigation," and "the state’s encroachment on family structure and traditional family values."


The commenter explicitly says the proposal is "dangerous nonsense" and that the guidelines "should be rejected." They argue the policy would disadvantage women and girls and reject the premise that gender identity should guide treatment in schools.


The commenter explicitly labels the submission "Opposed" and repeatedly says the policies "overstep the responsibility of the schools" and should not be enacted. They also state they would homeschool or send their child to private school if the policies are implemented, indicating clear rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "Oppose these transgender mandates" and repeatedly calls the rules "horrific," "ludicrous and evil," and asks to "Protect our children from false ideologies." They also argue against enforcement and say they will sue, indicating clear rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose this policy" and argues that Virginia schools "should not push affirmation of the transgender student’s identity on others." They also state it conflicts with their "deeply held religious belief," indicating rejection of the regulation as written.


The commenter explicitly says, "Absolutely oppose all of this" and "I absolutely oppose every single one of these recommendations." They argue the policies violate "parental rights" and threaten "religious freedom," indicating clear rejection of the regulation.


Undermining families does nothing for the health of society

The commenter states they are in "confident and urgent opposition to the proposals for Virginia schools" and repeatedly criticizes the policies as "scientifically unsupported" and "very, very concerning." They argue the policies would "undermine families" and amount to "cultural imperialism," indicating clear rejection of the regulation.


As a teacher and father, I strongly oppose this

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose this" and later repeats, "I oppose these measures." They argue the policies are "anti-God," "harmful," and "diabolical," and say they will seek homeschooling or private school to avoid them.


The commenter explicitly labels the submission "Strongly Oppose" and argues the policy would "erode parental control" and "undermine" sex-separated facilities. They also say it would allow boys into girls' locker rooms and that concerns for girls' modesty were ignored, indicating clear rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose" and argues that "children should not be able to make life altering decisions without their parent’s guidance before adulthood," which rejects the policy’s approach to transgender students. The comment does not request modifications; it clearly opposes adoption.


Penises in my daughter's bathroom? No thanks.

The commenter explicitly says, "This proposal needs to go to the waste bin and never see the light of day again. Oppose." They also argue the policy is "ludicrous" and "incoherent," and object to restroom access based on gender identity.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, saying "Enough is enough!" and "Don't force it upon the rest of us!!" They object to transgender students using bathrooms aligned with their gender identity and call the guidance "radical idolatry," indicating they want the regulation rejected or substantially weakened.


The commenter explicitly calls the policy "a nonsense policy" and says "This policy will harm kids," indicating clear opposition to adoption. They argue the draft would prevent administrators from questioning self-professed gender identity and frame it as enabling misuse of bathroom access.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose the proposed transgender mandates for public schools!!" This is a clear rejection of the regulation and indicates they do not want it adopted.


The commenter explicitly says, "Vehemently oppose" and "I strongly oppose it," which clearly indicates rejection of the regulation. The statement about "potential trauma" frames the policy as harmful and supports an oppositional stance.


The commenter explicitly says, "I wholeheartedly support," which directly endorses the regulation. The statement that "Every person deserves to be accepted and supported at school" reinforces approval of the policy's goals.


The commenter explicitly says, "I'm strongly opposed to these measures," which directly rejects the proposed policies. The phrase "as an injustice to children and parents" indicates a substantive objection rather than a request for modification.


The commenter explicitly states, "I support the proposed guidance," and the title says "Strongly Support." There is no qualifying language or criticism, so the position is clearly in favor of adoption.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose!!!!!" and repeatedly rejects the policy, calling it "absurd" and "nonsense." They object to pronoun use, parental involvement, and the policy being applied to schools, indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says "I strongly oppose the transgender mandates" and repeatedly argues schools should not adopt policies that affirm transgender students or require pronoun use. They also urge schools to "uphold the truth of gender and biological sex" and describe the policy as a "misguided transgender agenda," indicating clear opposition to the regulation.


Ignorance can only be overcome with education and advocacy

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support" the guidance and "school-based requirements that support our transgender students." They also argue that "These regulations will support students" and call for education and acceptance as part of the regulation, indicating clear approval of adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I overwhelming oppose this transgender bill" and repeatedly argues it is "totally wrong." They also urge rejection by condemning the proposal as dangerous and harmful to "families, children, and educators."


Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you

The comment quotes Matthew 18:6 about causing "one of these little ones" to sin, which signals a religious objection to the proposed transgender student policies. It does not explicitly say "oppose," but the scripture citation is being used as a warning against the regulation and implies rejection of it.


VEA proposal on transgender policies for public schools

The comment explicitly says "Strongly oppose!!!", which clearly indicates rejection of the proposed transgender student policies. No supporting or qualifying language is present.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, saying "I absolutely dissagree with all of this." They further denounce its premise as "a monstrous falsehood," indicating clear opposition to the regulation's adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I absolutely support this guidance," which directly endorses adoption of the regulation. They also give a reason for support: wanting schools to be "safe and welcoming for everyone."


I support all guidance that supports transgender youth in all aspects.

The commenter explicitly says, "I support all guidance that supports transgender youth in all aspects" and repeatedly urges decision-makers to "Please listen" and "Please make this world a kinder, gentler place for our children." The comment clearly endorses the proposed guidance and frames it as beneficial for transgender children and families.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly support" and asks to "support legislation to protect students that identify as trans, non-binary, gender queer or gender identity." They further state these students "deserve to be protected" and "the same rights and protections as every other student," indicating clear approval of the regulation's purpose.


The commenter explicitly says, "Please do not support this legislation" and labels it "Strongly Oppose." They object to transgender students using bathrooms/locker rooms and to sex-specific activity rules, calling the policy "government over reach at it's worst."


The commenter explicitly says "Oppose as Written" and repeatedly argues against adoption, stating "These proposed changes do not do that" and "I can only see the negative aspects." They object to perceived impacts on "parental rights," girls' sports, and bathroom/locker room access, indicating clear opposition to the regulation as proposed.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy with "Absolutely not!" and says "This will harm women’s rights" and calls it "ridiculous nonsense." The body argues against transgender recognition on religious and biological grounds, indicating opposition to adoption of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support the passing of this document regarding transgender students in schools" and repeatedly urges that it "passes" and "garners more support than opposition." The comment defends the policy’s protections for transgender youth and argues against objections to it.


The commenter explicitly says, "Strongly oppose the proposed transgender policies," which directly rejects adoption. They also argue the policies are "harmful," "Removes parental guidance," and "confuses students," reinforcing opposition.


The commenter explicitly calls the policy an "appalling attack on children, parents, our culture and our future" and says it is "CHILD ABUSE" and "counter to science." They argue the guidance should not allow students to believe transgender identities are valid and frame the policy as deceptive and harmful.


I strongly support these protections. Trans kids are kids!

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support these protections" and "Protect trans youth," which clearly endorses the regulation. The statement "Trans kids are kids!" further reinforces approval of the policy's protections for transgender students.


The commenter explicitly labels the policy "Strongly Oppose" and says the DOE is "violating the rights of 'other students'" by imposing transgender education. They also call the programs "bogus" and demand the DOE stop spending money on them, indicating rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly states, "I strongly oppose!" which directly indicates rejection of the proposed regulation. There is no additional context suggesting any support or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support this," indicating approval of the proposed transgender student policies. The title, "Trans rights are human rights," further reinforces a supportive stance toward the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support evidence-based policies to protect transgender students" and "I commend those who have worked with such care on these guidance documents." They also argue the policies are needed to prevent harassment and violence and to support belonging in school.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose this" twice, making their position clear. The brief reference to "concern and compassion" and "practical consideration" does not soften the opposition or indicate support for adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I fully support this legislation" and endorses the policy's goal of creating "a more inclusive environment for transgender students." They also argue it will benefit "all students," indicating clear approval of adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose this action by schools," which clearly indicates rejection of the proposed transgender student policies. No supporting reasons or qualifications are provided, but the stance is unambiguous.


The commenter explicitly says, "I am 100% opposed to this policy" and asks, "Please vote against this ridiculous policy." They also object to transgender instruction and accommodations, including "guys should not play girl sports" and restroom access, indicating clear rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly endorses the policy’s goals, saying trans students "must be respected, uplifted, and protected" and framing "Trans rights are human rights!" as a clear approval of protections for transgender students. The title "Full rights for trans students!" also signals support for adopting the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose" and calls the policy "this sickening agenda," which clearly indicates rejection of the regulation. There is no request for modification or neutral input.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose this agenda" and argues the policy is "not in the best interests of any child." They repeatedly reject the regulation as harmful, saying it is "a hindrance to the wellbeing of our children" and that "this isn’t the way" to help transgender students.


The commenter explicitly says "Support This Bill, Support Trans Youth" and argues that schools should be a "place of safety" for trans students. They endorse the policy’s protections against forced gendering and oppose exclusion based on sex-segregated facilities, saying "excluding children based on their genitals can't stop something that already happens all the time."


I strongly object the draft on transgender in our public schools

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly object" and "Please do not pass this policy," which clearly opposes adoption. They also argue the policy would create problems around pronouns and bathroom access, reinforcing rejection rather than support with amendments.


The comment is explicitly titled "Strongly Support" and the body urges action and education in favor of the policy: "we must ACT and EDUCATE!" It frames the regulation as a needed modern solution to current social issues.


The comment invokes religious condemnation of the policy, saying "I support making Jesus Christ Lord of ALL" and warning that "many will follow their shameful ways," which signals rejection of the transgender student policies. It does not offer procedural feedback or support for adoption; instead it frames the guidance as morally wrong.


Strongly oppose transgender policy in schools

The commenter explicitly says, "Strongly oppose transgender policy in public schools," which directly rejects the proposed regulation. There is no qualifying language suggesting support or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly titles the submission "Strongly Support" and argues that "Children should not have to face this fear" because trans people deserve to "live freely as they are." This clearly endorses the proposed transgender student policies.


The commenter explicitly says, "I fully support any and all efforts" to make schools welcoming for trans students. They argue that trans kids should be heard and supported so they can "grow and learn without the added stress of not being recognized," which clearly endorses the regulation's purpose.


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


The commenter explicitly labels the comment "Support" and states that "Transgender students should feel completely safe in our schools" and that "we should support them in any way we can." This clearly endorses the proposed policies.


The commenter explicitly says, "I very strongly support this policy" and urges legislators to "support this bill." They also frame adoption as "progress for civil rights" and say it would "improve the lives of transgender students," indicating clear approval of the regulation.


Strongly oppose isn’t up to the school system or the Commonwealth to make these decisions for us

The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose this as written" and argues it is "not a matter for the Commonwealth or the school system." They object to transgender students sharing facilities with girls, stating, "I do not want boys/men in restrooms and locker rooms with my girls," and request separate facilities instead.


The commenter explicitly says "Support Trans Rights" and argues the policy is "important" because it would create "an environment that supports them and can keep them safe." They clearly favor adoption of the regulation to protect transgender students from bullying and harm.


The commenter says, "I strongly oppose" and explicitly asks, "Please, do not bring this policy forth into our education system." They argue against the policy's premise and claim it would cause harm, indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly states "STRONGLY OPOSED," which clearly indicates opposition to the proposed policies. No supporting arguments are provided, but the stance is unambiguous.


The commenter explicitly says, "I fully support the protection of trans youth in the Virginia public school system" and titles the comment "Strongly Support." They also argue that school should be "a safe space for trans youth," indicating clear approval of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly appose discussion of transgender in schools," which clearly rejects the regulation. They also argue it is "not biblical" and that this is "taught and pushed" on kids, indicating opposition to adoption of the policy.


The commenter explicitly says "I 100% DISAGREE WITH THIS!!" and repeatedly argues against restroom access, dress code flexibility, and gender identity recognition. They also threaten withdrawal from public school if it passes: "If this passes i know atleast 5 kids that won't be in public school."


Protect the rights of transgender students!

The commenter explicitly urges approval, saying "This bill will help so many and promote change within school systems" and "Their rights should not have to be voted on." The comment advocates for transgender students' ability to use restrooms consistent with their gender identity, which aligns with supporting the regulation.


The commenter explicitly states "Opposed" and reinforces it with "1000% Opposed," which clearly indicates rejection of the regulation. No supporting or qualifying language is present.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose this," which directly states opposition to the proposed policies. They also object that it "isn't the schools job" and claim their "rights and privileges as a parent are being jeopardized," reinforcing rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "Strongly agree" and adds, "We must protect, support, and affirm trans youth," which clearly endorses the proposed transgender student policies. There is no language opposing or questioning the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Support" and states they "strongly [support] the model policy protecting transgender students" and want it implemented "as soon as possible." The final sentence, "They deserve equal treatment," clearly endorses adoption of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy with "NO!!!!!!" and states, "This does not belong in public schools." This is a clear call to reject the regulation rather than adopt it with changes.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, saying "THIS ENDS RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW" and "THIS RADICAL PLOY IS AN ATTACK" on their values. They also insist "THERE ARE 2 GENDERS" and demand to "LEAVE THE CHILDREN OUT OF YOUR 'CHOICE'," which clearly opposes adoption of the transgender student policies.


FULL rights & protections for all trans students! Strongly support!

The commenter explicitly says "Strongly support!" and calls for "FULL rights & protections for all trans students." They also argue the policy is needed so these children can "safely attend classes," indicating clear approval of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "I 1000% SUPPORT TRANS RIGHTS," which clearly endorses the regulation’s purpose of protecting transgender students. The follow-up phrase "hope virginia can get our act together on this" reinforces approval and a desire for adoption.


The comment explicitly says "Strongly Object," which clearly indicates opposition to adopting the proposed regulation. It provides no supporting details or nuance beyond that rejection.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly, strongly oppose this," which directly rejects the regulation. They also argue that "Parents grandparents, or legal guardians, should always have the authority" over what is best for children, indicating opposition to the policy's approach.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose these changes" and argues against allowing "students of the opposite biological sex into a locker room" and against withholding information from parents. The final sentence about financially supporting legal challenges further confirms rejection of the regulation.


Support to protect the rights of transgender students

The commenter explicitly says, "I support these guidelines" and frames them as necessary to protect transgender students' rights and safety. The comment advocates adoption of the regulation as written to ensure equal access to education.


The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose this nonsense!!" and urges officials to "stop trying to confuse little children," which clearly rejects the proposed transgender student policies. The reference to "God made two genders...male and female" indicates opposition to the regulation's recognition of transgender students.


The commenter explicitly says "Protect Trans Kids" and argues that "Trans kids are particularly vulnerable" and "need to be given the opportunity to safe, especially in schools," which supports policies protecting transgender students. The comment endorses the regulation’s purpose of creating safety for trans students rather than opposing it.


The commenter explicitly endorses protections for transgender students with the title "Protect Trans Kids" and states that "Trans kids are particularly vulnerable" and need to be kept safe in schools. This aligns with supporting the proposed policies rather than opposing them.


The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose this nonsense!!" and urges officials to "stop trying to confuse little children," which clearly rejects the proposed transgender student policies. The reference to "God made two genders...male and female" further indicates opposition to the regulation's recognition of transgender students.


The comment explicitly says "Support" and urges "PROTECT TRANS STUDENTS," which clearly endorses the regulation’s purpose. There is no language opposing or questioning the policy.


The commenter explicitly labels the submission "Opposed" and says the policy is "a disgrace" and "beyond unacceptable." They argue this is "not a concern for public school" and should be handled by "a counselor, parents, and medical doctors" instead of being included in school policy.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose any policy in regards to transsexual students in schools," which directly rejects the proposed regulation. They also argue against specific elements of the policy, including locker rooms, sports participation, and protections for students and parents who object.


The commenter explicitly says, "I fully support this" and expresses approval that "schools will be more accepting for all students." This is a clear endorsement of adopting the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support this document" and endorses the policy as providing an "equitable public school experience" for transgender students. The comment is clearly in favor of adoption rather than rejection or weakening.


The commenter explicitly says, "Of course I support a safe and nurturing learning environment for all students!" and calls the guidance "a step in the right direction." They also endorse protecting transgender and non-binary students from harassment and harm.


STRONGLY OPPOSE NEW TRANSGENDER POLICY. !!!

The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY OPPOSE NEW TRANSGENDER POLICY" and states the policy "would [be] so damaging in many ways and is not needed." This is a clear rejection of adoption.


The commenter explicitly endorses transgender rights, stating "Trans rights are human rights!" and that trans people "deserve to be treated with decency and respect." This clearly supports the regulation’s purpose of protecting transgender students and promoting nondiscrimination.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support this Guidance Document" and argues that "Transgender students deserve to be treated like all other students." They also endorse the safety rationale, stating students "deserve to feel safe in their school environment."


The commenter explicitly says "Fully support" and "Protect trans kids!" indicating clear approval of the proposed policies. There is no language suggesting opposition or neutrality.


Support VDE’s guidance on inclusive learning environs for all includ. transgender & non-binary youth

The commenter explicitly says, "We support VDE’s guidance" and praises "inclusive learning environments for all, including transgender and non-binary youths." This is a clear endorsement of adopting the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "We support VDE’s guidance" and describes it as creating "inclusive learning environments for all, including transgender and non-binary youths." This is a clear endorsement of the proposed guidance.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly support" and argues that Arlington should provide "inclusive and just treatment of transgender members of its community." The comment endorses the policy’s goals of tolerance, understanding, and respect for all students.


Do not support. You should seek Jesus for your answer.

The commenter explicitly says, "Do not support," which clearly rejects the proposed regulation. The rest of the comment (“You should seek Jesus and your bible for your answer”) reinforces opposition without offering policy-specific reasons.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support legislation to protect the health and well-being of trans students," which clearly endorses the regulation. There is no opposing language or ambiguity.


Oppose: those that encourage this mental illness (gender dysmorphia) deserve ridicule

The commenter explicitly begins with "Oppose" and argues that people who "encourage gender dysmorphia in students" should be ridiculed. The comment rejects the regulation’s supportive approach to transgender students and frames it as harmful encouragement of an illness.


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


We Must Ensure A Safe Learning Environment for All

The commenter explicitly says "absolutely includes trans children" and argues for structural support to "ensure a safe environment for all children." The comment endorses the regulation’s goal of protecting students and reducing fear in schools rather than opposing it.


The commenter explicitly says, "Any policy that supports equal rights for all, I fully support" and frames the regulation as protecting "Transgender students have rights just like any other student." This is a clear endorsement of the proposed policies and their inclusive treatment of transgender students.


The commenter explicitly calls the proposal "an important step in the right direction" and says Virginia schools "can be better," indicating support for adoption. Although they note the reforms may not fully fix discrimination and suggest future changes, those remarks are framed as additional improvements rather than opposition to the policy.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose this" and argues against the policy's premise, stating that "science dictates a sex not what you just choose for any given day." The comment also frames the policy as punishing people with certain beliefs, indicating rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "Strongly oppose the transgender policy," asks that "every effort is made to oppose this policy action," and concludes, "You must stop this misleading policy." The body argues the policy would create conflict, disrupt dress codes and extracurriculars, and undermine educators and parents, all indicating rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly praises the proposal and says, "Adopting these guidelines would not only mean a better life for current students." They also express enthusiasm for the "inclusive and supportive policies" and thank the authors for the document, indicating clear approval.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY OPPOSE" and states "This would be detrimental for any child," which clearly rejects adoption of the regulation. The comment offers no support or conditional approval language.


The commenter explicitly says they are "vehemently opposed to this draft mandate" and calls it "unconstitutional." They also argue it "drastically infringes on the rights of the majority of students," which indicates rejection of the regulation rather than support or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly says "Fully support," which directly endorses adoption of the proposed policies. The title "Protect Trans Youth" also signals approval of the regulation's purpose and direction.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Object" and asks that the proposal "be rescinded." They argue it "usurp[s] the parent's authority" and raises safety concerns about shared facilities, indicating opposition to adoption of the policy as written.


Opposition to the Virginia Department of Education Proposed Transgender Policy

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose the proposed Transgender Policy" and argues it should not be approved as written. They also say the policy "usurps parental rights" and goes beyond the Department of Education's mission, which clearly indicates rejection of the regulation.


Strongly Support. How are y'all against anti-discrimination policy?

The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Support" and argues that schools should adopt anti-discrimination policy protections for LGBT+ students. They criticize opposition as "hate mongering homophobes and transphobes" and say schools should ensure "equitable education for every student."


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support using the Virginia Department of Education's guidance" and frames it as promoting "inclusive learning environments for transgender and non-binary youth." This is a clear endorsement of adopting the regulation/guidance.


The commenter explicitly says, "Strongly oppose" and "Do not pass this." They argue against the policy on the grounds that recognizing gender based on self-identification makes it "meaningless," indicating clear rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "I strongly support the rights of trans youth" and endorses the goal that schools should "foster safe and nourishing environments." This is a clear affirmative position in favor of the proposed policies.


The commenter explicitly says "FULLY SUPPORT" and urges to "PROTECT TRANS KIDS," indicating clear approval of the proposed policies. The body further endorses the underlying goals by stating that trans kids deserve "love, safety and acceptance" and that everyone has a right to their "space and identity and expression."


The comment explicitly says "Strongly oppose!" which directly states opposition to adopting the guidance document. No supporting reasons or qualifications are provided.


The commenter explicitly says "Strong support" and endorses policies that "provide a safe environment for kids to learn and develop" without fear related to gender identity or sexual orientation. The final sentence argues educators should prioritize creating that safe space, indicating clear approval of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly support" and argues that "Trans students should be able to go to school and be supported, just like every student." They also endorse "setting a new standard" for counties that currently lack one, indicating clear approval of the regulation.


Policies for the Treatment of Transgender Students

The commenter explicitly says, "I wish to go on record as opposing the proposed policies" and later repeats, "I wish to register my opposition to these policies." The body argues against restroom access, overnight trips, and sports participation for transgender students, framing the policies as harmful to girls' safety and fairness.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose the proposed transgender policy," which is a clear rejection of the regulation. The phrase "For the sake of all children and parents" provides a general justification but does not change the opposing stance.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support this," which directly endorses the policy. They also frame it as life-saving and affirming, saying it could be "the difference between a child wanting to live and not wanting to live" and urging to "Let children focus on being their authentic selves."


The commenter explicitly says "Opposed" and states the policy should not be adopted because it would contribute to "gender confusion in our children." They also object to DOE involvement, saying they want to "preserve parental responsibility (not DOE)" over sex education and gender-related instruction.


Support for guidance that promotes the health and well-being of transgender youth.

The commenter explicitly says the organization "fully supports this guidance" and describes it as moving Virginia "forward" toward safer, more respectful schools. The comment praises the policy for supporting transgender youth and promoting healthy attitudes about people of all genders.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Oppose" and urges that "XX XY keep separate," which rejects the proposed transgender student policies. The phrase "Create other safe places for the LGBTQxyz crowd" indicates opposition to integrating transgender students under these guidelines.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose" and calls the policy "a destructive policy." They argue it would "take away from the rights of children" and "put them at risk" by allowing access to sex-segregated spaces, indicating clear rejection of adoption.


The commenter explicitly labels the policy "Strongly Opposed" and calls it "an egregious intrusion into the family". They argue it usurps "parental authority" and say "Everything about this policy is divisive," indicating clear rejection of adoption.


The commenter explicitly endorses the policy, saying "This is much needed" and "this is good progress." They also state that "Trans kids need more protection," which supports adoption of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support this policy." They also explain why, stating it is important to "protect trans youth" and "promote tolerance and understanding," which clearly endorses adoption of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose" and asks to "oppose this bill." They object to transgender inclusion in sports and facilities, stating "Boys should play boy sports and girls should play girl sports" and "Boys do not belong in girl locker rooms."


The commenter explicitly says, "I fully support this model policy," which directly indicates approval of the regulation. The personal context about having "a non-binary child" reinforces that the support is substantive and relevant to the policy.


Support for Transgender/non-binary students

The commenter explicitly says they are "in support of the Model Policies" and repeatedly urges that the rule be adopted, stating it will "make Virginia schools a better place to learn" and thanking the agency for "ensuring safe and welcoming schools." The comment offers reasons for approval rather than objections or requests to weaken the policy.


Fully support, Trans rights are human rights

The commenter explicitly says "Fully support!" and the title states "Trans rights are human rights," which clearly endorses the regulation. There is no indication of any objection or qualification.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do not support," indicating opposition to the regulation. The reason given — "This is against the Bible teachings. Genesis 1:27" — reinforces that they want it rejected on religious grounds.


The commenter clearly rejects the policy, calling it "a joke" and criticizing spending on "new bathrooms and locker rooms" for transgender students. They also frame the policy as "appeasing every new fad," indicating opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly titles the comment "Fully Support" and argues that "There needs to be protection in place for transgender youth" and that they should be treated "just as how anyone would treat a cisgender individual." The final sentence frames the policy as "making the world a better place," indicating clear approval of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose these changes" and repeatedly asks, "Please do not do this." They also state that several specific provisions "need to be removed," showing clear rejection of the regulation rather than support for it with modifications.


Support. Look up "intersex". It's Biology.

The commenter explicitly labels the comment "Support" and argues in favor of recognizing transgender/intersex realities, saying "that is why we say 'assigned at birth'" and endorsing the policy's underlying premise. The final lines criticize opponents as "bigot[s]," indicating approval of the regulation rather than opposition.


The commenter explicitly labels the submission "Oppose- Protect family rights" and asks, "Please do not remove the rights of parents." They argue that "A school is NOT the institution to teach transgender," indicating rejection of the proposed transgender student policies.


This guidance does NOT have to do with love or freedom

The commenter explicitly says, "I DO NOT SUPPORT THIS," and frames the policy as "a REMOVAL OF FREEDOM." They argue it would be "removing the rights of parents" and "the protection of a home and a parent's voice," indicating opposition to adoption of the guidance.


The commenter rejects the policy outright, saying "Quit trying to change what God has created" and calling it an "idiotic liberal agenda." This clearly indicates opposition to adopting the transgender student guidance.


Model Policies for the Treatment of Transgender Students

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


draft model policies for the treatment of transgender students

The commenter states plainly, "I oppose these policies," which directly indicates rejection of the proposed regulation. No qualifying language suggests support or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly says "Vigorously disagree with this draft" and repeatedly argues the policy "violates" rights, "endangers student health and welfare," and should not be imposed. They also call for changes on privacy, parental notification, and sports, but the overall thrust is rejection of the draft as written.


The commenter explicitly says, "Please do not enact this policy!" which directly opposes adoption. They also argue that suggesting otherwise to children "will only serve to confuse them," indicating substantive disagreement with the policy's transgender recognition provisions.


The commenter explicitly says, "We MUST support our transgender students!!!!!" which clearly endorses the regulation's purpose. The title, "Support Trans Kids," reinforces that they want the policies adopted.


The commenter says they "strongly believe" schools should keep this issue out of the school system and objects to required pronouns, parental information limits, locker room use, and sports participation rules. They explicitly argue for religious exemption from "ANYTHING" they object to, indicating opposition to the proposed transgender student policies.


Disagree with proposed policy in the strongest possible terms

The commenter states their "strongest possible opposition" and says the proposal is "an overreach" that goes "far beyond the path the General Assembly prescribed." They explicitly reject the policy’s treatment of transgender students and ask that children receive counseling instead of the proposed approach.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose this radical agenda" and states, "I do not approve of their proposed guidelines." The rest of the comment argues the policy would "eradicate all distinctions between male and female" and "indoctrinate our school children," indicating rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support!!" which directly indicates approval of the proposed regulation. The remainder, "Don’t be s," appears to be an incomplete aside and does not negate the clear supportive stance.


Oppose policies to accommodate and affirm transgender identities

The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose public school policies that would affirm or accommodate transgender identities for students." They further argue schools "should not" take this role and that the system should "use the majority as its norm," indicating rejection of the proposed policies.


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


The commenter says the draft guidance is "distressing and extreme" and argues it should not be "imposed on other children." They specifically object to bathroom access and pronoun enforcement, suggesting a neutral bathroom instead of the proposed policies.


Thank you for your support of students who are LGBT

The commenter explicitly thanks the recipients for their "support of students who are LGBT" and praises efforts to ensure schools are free from "bullying, harassment, and discrimination." This clearly endorses the proposed policies' goals and implementation.


The commenter explicitly says "Totally Disagree With This Draft" and "100% echo[s]" another opposing comment, indicating clear rejection of the regulation. The rest of the comment criticizes supporters and calls their behavior "Shameful," reinforcing opposition rather than support or neutrality.


Transgender Policies for Loudoun County Schools

The commenter explicitly says they "oppose in the strongest possible terms" all of the proposed transgender policies. They further state the proposals are "harmful for children" and "take away parental rights," indicating clear rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "Please do not adopt the model policies" and "Please vote NO to squelch these policies," which clearly rejects the regulation. They also argue against transgender inclusion in schools, calling it "dangerous" and "unnatural," and object to "indoctrinated" children.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY APPROVE" and repeatedly argues that the policy should protect trans students, stating they "deserve protection and support" and that school should be "a safe and tolerant place." The final sentence, "Shame on the Shenandoah valley if this does not pass," further confirms support for adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I want to strongly support this guidance document," which directly endorses adoption of the regulation. Their role as an assistant head of a school adds context but does not change the clear supportive stance.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose" and objects to the state "having any right to parent our children" or "help them decide the gender in which they identify." They also argue the policy would place children in "compromising situations such as using the restroom," indicating rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY OPPOSE" and argues "IT IS NOT THE ROLE OF THE SCHOOL" and "OUR SCHOOLS SHOULD TEACH STUDENTS NOT PARENT," indicating rejection of the proposed transgender student policies. The comment frames the issue as a family matter rather than a school responsibility.


The commenter explicitly says, "Has my support completely" and calls the policy "a huge step in the right direction." They also endorse the need for tailored help for transgender students, indicating approval of the regulation.


Strongly oppose proposed transgender policies in schools

The commenter explicitly says, "Strongly oppose proposed policy for schools on transgender," which directly states opposition to adoption. The additional criticism of specific findings as "offensive" and "ludicrous" reinforces a negative position toward the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly support" and states that "Transgender students should feel safe and comfortable in school," which clearly endorses the regulation's purpose. The final sentence, "I don’t know how anyone would be against that," reinforces approval rather than criticism.


The commenter explicitly urges readers to "not potentially make it worse for your child" and argues for acceptance and support of trans youth. They defend trans identity and criticize religious or scientific objections, indicating clear support for the proposed transgender student policies.


The commenter explicitly says "support!" and urges, "Let people feel safe with who they want to be!" This clearly endorses adopting the regulation and its protections for transgender students.


The commenter explicitly states, "I support this fully!" which directly endorses adoption of the regulation. There is no qualifying language or criticism suggesting any opposition or modification request.


The commenter explicitly says, "It’s imperative to support trans kids," which clearly endorses the regulation’s purpose. They further justify this by arguing that trans kids need support to become "healthy, productive members of our society."


The commenter explicitly urges support for the policy and transgender students: "Support transgender kids" and "Treat them how they want to be treated, as humans." The body endorses allowing them to "explore themselves and find inner peace," which aligns with adopting the regulation.


The comment explicitly says "Strongly Oppose!" in response to the transgender school policies, which is a clear rejection of the regulation. No supporting reasons or qualifications are provided.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly support LGBTQ+ kids’ rights!" and urges the policy to help transgender students feel comfortable and supported in school. The body argues that school support is "extremely important" and ends with "Please help these students," indicating clear approval of the regulation's purpose.


The commenter explicitly endorses LGBTQ+ rights and says they are "important" for young people to feel "accepted and supported," which aligns with approving the transgender student policies. There is no language opposing or questioning the regulation.


We strongly oppose these policies. They should NOT be a part of our children's schools.

The commenter explicitly says, "We strongly oppose these policies" and "They should NOT be a part of our children's schools." They also describe the policies as "radical ideas" and an "agenda," indicating clear rejection of adoption.


The commenter explicitly endorses the policy’s goals, saying that "taking steps towards understanding those who are not cisgender will go a long way" toward safety and human rights. They frame the guidance as "suicide prevention" and argue it will create a "supportive environment," which indicates clear support for adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I completely support this" and adds that it will be "helpful for transgender students to feel welcomed and safe at school." This is a clear endorsement of adopting the regulation.


Terrible Policy!  All kinds of issues...

The commenter repeatedly rejects the policy, calling it "Terrible Policy" and saying they are "really disappointed with this policy." They argue it is "dangerous," object to pronoun and privacy provisions, and warn it is "a law suit waiting to happen," all of which indicate clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support this" and frames the policy as necessary. They also give reasons in favor, saying it is needed "to keep our children safe" and "to protect their mental health."


The commenter explicitly labels the submission "STRONG SUPPORT" and says the guidelines are "crucial to trans people" and provide needed support in schools. They also express a desire for better school support and harassment handling, indicating approval of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly endorses the regulation, saying "I agree with this" and "I say yes to this." They also defend transgender identity recognition and reject parental objections, indicating support for the proposed policies.


This is not tolerance, but the removal of everyone's rights...including parents of trans kids

The commenter explicitly says "Oppose this!" and argues the policy should not be passed, claiming it removes rights and forces discrimination. They also say "My kids will never attend public education if this bill is passed," which reinforces rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly labels the position "STRONGLY SUPPORT" and repeatedly endorses the policy, saying "by supporting we are protecting everyone’s right" and "We are here for them." The comment argues the regulation will create "an atmosphere for diversity and acceptance" and a "nurturing environment," indicating clear approval of adoption.


The commenter explicitly says "Oppose oppose oppose" and "i strongly disapprove of this bill," which clearly indicates rejection of the proposed regulation. No supporting or neutral language is present.


The commenter explicitly writes "support support support!!," which clearly indicates approval of the proposed regulation. There is no contrary language or additional qualification.


The commenter explicitly rejects the document, calling it "influenced by bad science" and saying it is "intended to promote radical social engineering." They also warn it will have "serious and gravely detrimental effects," which clearly indicates opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy with the title "No to Transgenderism" and states that "Transgenderism is wrong in the sight of God," indicating opposition to the regulation. The comment does not ask for changes or provide neutral input; it argues against transgender identity on religious grounds and warns that God will punish it.


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

The commenter explicitly says, "NO, I do not support" the policy and calls it a "Horrible policy." They also object to schools "discussing transgenderism with my child," indicating rejection of the regulation's approach.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly OPPOSE, OPPOSE, OPPOSE!" and argues the policies "go too far" and are an "illegal intrusion". They object to "usurping parental rights" and to accommodating transgender youth in schools, indicating clear rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly labels the submission "Strongly Oppose" and argues the policy should not be adopted because it "take[s] away parent rights" and creates "a safety risk" in bathrooms and locker rooms. They also ask to "put families first ALWAYS," indicating rejection of the regulation as written.


About the proposed transgender policy for Virginia schools, I am 1,000% against it.

The commenter explicitly says, "I am 1,000% against it" and argues the policy would "totally change and accept transgender students as normal." They also urge delaying any decision until age 18 and reject requiring others to accept transgender students, indicating clear opposition to the proposed policy.


NO, I do not support anyone discussing transgenderism with students. Only parents!

The commenter explicitly says, "NO, I do not support" the policy and rejects adults discussing "transgenderism with students." The phrase "Only parents!" indicates opposition to school guidance on this topic and a preference to restrict discussion to parents alone.


The commenter explicitly titles the submission "Strongly Oppose" and argues the policy is "another way to take away parent rights." They also reject transgender student access to restrooms/locker rooms, saying it creates a "safety risk" and urging to "put families first ALWAYS!"


The commenter explicitly says, "I Oppose Transgender Policies by DOE," and objects to schools helping students with gender identity without parental notification. The quoted concern about "a parent even knowing" and the lack of a requirement to notify parents shows opposition to the proposed policies.


Vehemently oppose. No one can possibly teach, learn or guide under such circumstances.

The commenter explicitly says "Vehemently oppose" and argues the policy "will only serve to promote confusion." They clearly reject the regulation and claim it would harm teaching and learning: "No one can possibly teach well, learn well, or guide well under such circumstances."


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose!" and argues the policy will "confuse or traumatize children" and "totally hurt children and teens." They also object to "Bathrooms and sports" and claim it is "Nullifying Title IX," indicating rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I completely support this initiative," indicating clear approval of the regulation. They also endorse its goals by emphasizing that "Every child deserves respect, dignity, and the right to an education in a safe space" and advocating education to build tolerance and empathy.


The commenter explicitly says they are "appalled" by the policy and asks, "I beg you to reverse this policy immediately," which clearly indicates opposition. They also argue the state should not "insert itself" and claim the policy would put children "in harm's way."


The commenter explicitly objects to the policy as a "government mandated promotion of gender confusion" and says children do not need "more instruction" of this kind. Calling it "a most cruel form of child abuse" indicates a clear rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I am against this policy" and concludes, "This is a big no from me." They argue the policy harms privacy, safety, parental notification, and mental health, and call it "irresponsible."


Strongly Oppose This Idiocy & Assault on Parental Rights

The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Oppose" and repeatedly condemns the policies as "idiocy," "outrageous," and "immoral." They argue the rules threaten safety, parental rights, and school authority, and conclude the policies would cause "a mass exodus from public schools."


The commenter explicitly says, "I support this policy" and adds that "all students should be respected," which clearly endorses adoption of the regulation. The statement is direct and unambiguous.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy’s implications, arguing that "Allowing biological boys in the same restroom and/or locker room is inappropriate" and urging officials to "protect our children." The comment frames the regulation as harmful and asks for it not to be adopted in its current form.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do not agree with the transgender policy being proposed" and frames the policy as harmful, stating it "puts my children at risk." They also argue it would "remove my parental rights" and prevent them from protecting their child, indicating clear opposition to adoption of the regulation.


VDOE Trans Policy doesn't protect anyone

The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, calling it "a disaster in the making" and saying it is "in no way shape or form about PROTECTING trans kids." They argue it should not allow access to facilities based on gender identity and frame the proposal as harmful and ideologically driven.


NO! Throw OutI am sure this is like shouting into the wind. privacy and safety,  modesty This Bill

The commenter explicitly rejects the policy multiple times, saying "No. Ridiculous" and "Throw Out" and ending with "No!" They argue it would harm privacy, safety, parental rights, and children’s mental health, and object to restroom access and nondisclosure to parents.


Strongly Oppose Proposed Transgender Picy

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly disapprove of the proposed guidelines" and argues the school system should have "no legal right" to act in place of parents. The comment frames the policy as harmful "radical theories" and says government should not "supersede the rights and responsibilities of parents," indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "Completely oppose these bills," which is a clear rejection of the proposed regulation. The title repeats the same position: "Completely oppose these transgender bills."


The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose these proposed transgender pol." They argue against the policies on multiple grounds, including limiting minors' decision-making, requiring parent notification, and protecting religious objections, indicating they want the regulation rejected rather than adopted.


The commenter explicitly says, "I fully support the adoption of House Bill 145 and Senate Bill 161" and repeatedly urges that the bills be passed. They frame the policies as protecting trans rights, preventing bullying, and creating an inclusive environment, while rejecting objections to them.


The commenter says, "I totally disagree with every policy" and rejects the submitted policies outright. They also warn that the policies are "opening up our children" to abuse, indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says they are "Opposed to Transgender Policies" and argues that "No child should be forced to share showers, locker rooms, hotel rooms or other intimate settings" with transgender students. This is a clear rejection of the proposed guidance, especially its provisions on facilities and sex-specific spaces.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose" and argues the policies "will create all kinds of very bad situations." They also claim the policies put people "at risk" in bathrooms and locker rooms, indicating rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly titles the submission "Oppose VDOE Transgender Policies" and repeatedly argues the policies "do not protect our children" and "will only harm them." They also say the policies "take away our rights as parents" and object to the transgender framework itself, indicating clear opposition to adoption.


Strongly Support this transgender students guidance document

The commenter explicitly says, "I wholeheartedly support this guidance" and frames it as protecting "the civil rights of transgender students." They also state, "We must support and empower transgender students," which clearly endorses adoption of the regulation.


Strongly Oppose "Gender identity" Guidelines

The commenter explicitly says, "I am strongly opposed to all 'Gender identity' Guidelines" and rejects the proposal outright. They also describe the guidelines as "agenda-driven" and "seriously damaging," indicating clear opposition rather than a request for changes.


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

The commenter explicitly says the policy "needs to be rejected" and calls it "the overreach of this latest policy" and "filled with deception." They also argue schools should "leave the final decision to the parents," indicating opposition to adoption as written.


The commenter says, "I am strongly opposed to all 'Gender identity' Guidelines" and explicitly rejects the proposed VDOE policy. They also argue that "The school should not keep secrets from parents" and that children should not be encouraged to think their biological sex is a "mistake," indicating opposition to the regulation's approach.


The commenter explicitly says, "I am writing in support of the Model Policies" and argues the rule will "make Virginia schools a better place to learn for transgender and nonbinary students." The comment repeatedly endorses the policy’s goals of safety, inclusion, and protection from discrimination.


The commenter explicitly rejects the proposal, calling it "insane" and accusing it of "imposing a radical ideology" and a "totalitarian social revolution." They also argue it undermines "parental authority" and should not be adopted.


The commenter explicitly endorses the policy’s underlying treatment of transgender students, saying they do not want kids harmed over pronoun use and urging others to "let trans people live." This clearly supports adoption of the regulation, likely as a means of affirming transgender students and their pronouns.


The commenter explicitly says, "I am in total opposition and do NOT approve of your proposed guidelines." They also criticize the policy as "radical theories" and say it is "NOT good science," indicating rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "do not approve of their proposed guidelines" and "I strongly oppose the policy." They also object to specific elements like "secrecy from parents and legal guardians," indicating rejection of the regulation rather than a request for modification.


Proposed Transgender Policy Is Predatory, Abusive, and Anti-Scientific

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose the proposed transgender policy" and concludes, "You must vote against this policy." They also argue it is "anti-scientific," unsafe, and a violation of "religious freedom," all of which indicate rejection rather than support or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly labels the submission "Oppose" and argues against the policy as "misguided," "appalling and atrocious," and an improper state intervention. They also insist that questions about children’s bodies should be handled by "parents & guardians" rather than the state, indicating rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly endorses the policies by stating, "These policies will save lives." This is a clear affirmative statement in favor of adoption, with no opposing language or qualifications.


Strong Support for Trans Guidance in Schools

The commenter explicitly states "full hearted support" for "the trans inclusive policies set forth by this guidance" and says they "hope you see the moral necessity for clear inclusive policies." They argue the policies help marginalized students and "pose no threat" to others, indicating clear approval of adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I approve of legislation to keep trans students safe and comfortable at learning facilities," which clearly endorses the regulation. The title also reinforces support: "Enforce Policies to Keep Trans Students Safe and Comfortable at School."


The commenter explicitly titles the submission "Opposition to Trans School Policies" and argues that school administrations trying to "exclude parents from discussions and decisions" is a "serious usurpation of parental rights." This indicates they want the proposed transgender student policies rejected or substantially changed to preserve parental control.


The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose the policies about transgrnger that are suggested in these pages." They further argue that children "shouldn't be able to choose 'what' they are on any given day," indicating rejection of the transgender student policies.


The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose transgender policy education being taught to children at school" and argues that the government has "no authority to override the authority of parents." The repeated objections and calls to preserve children as "male or female" indicate clear opposition to the proposed policy.


The commenter explicitly labels the submission "Oppose" and argues that schools should not "have their sexuality explored" or intrude into "the private life of my children." They also reject the proposal as not "medically based," indicating they want the regulation rejected rather than adopted.


The commenter explicitly says "No to Transgender policy" and calls it "a terrible policy," indicating clear opposition to adoption. They argue it "takes away a parent right," raises objections to bathroom/locker room access, and says it is "unfair" in sports, all of which support a rejecting stance.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, saying that even with a psychologist's diagnosis it "shall not be reason to allow students to enter bathrooms designated for the opposite biological sex." They also call the policy "Absolutely insane!" and argue it would let boys enter girls' bathrooms.


Please stop pushing the LGBT agenda on our school children!

The commenter explicitly asks officials to "protest against this policy" and calls it a "dangerous draft policy" that should not be imposed. They also say it would "brainwash" students and "undermine parents' authority," indicating clear rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose!" which directly states opposition to the proposed policies. The title, "Schools teaching lgbtqa garbage," also signals rejection of the regulation and hostility toward its subject matter.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy as a "ridiculous agenda" and says to "Stop wasting your time in office" on it. They also call transgender identity a "fad" and ask officials to stop "distorting" their way of life, indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "My whole family opposes the LGBTQ agenda for Virginia schools!" and states the policy "goes against our Pro-Life values... and our religion altogether." This is a clear rejection of the proposed transgender student policies.


The commenter explicitly says "Categorically oppose" the policy and frames it as a "violation of children’s innocence" and "parental rights." The language also rejects the regulation as "indoctrination of our children," indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy’s focus on transgender students, saying "Stop singling out transgender" and objecting to "promoting such a small piece of society." The phrase "Stop Making Abnormal Normal" indicates they want the regulation rejected or substantially weakened rather than adopted.


The commenter explicitly says, "We strongly oppose this" and "are extremely opposed," which clearly rejects the regulation. They also argue it "undermines the role of parents" and attacks "freedoms of conscience, expression, privacy and religion," indicating substantive opposition rather than a neutral remark.


NO "Model Policies for the Treatment of Transgender Students in Virginia’s Public Schools!"

The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose the draft guidance" and repeatedly calls it "a dangerous draft policy." They argue it promotes a "sexualized agenda," undermines "parents' authority," and constitutes an "assault on the freedoms of conscience, expression, privacy, and religion," all of which indicate clear opposition to adoption.


No! Not good for the health of individuals, families or the country!

The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, saying it is "not something that should be forced upon our children" and criticizing what "the LGBT community pushes on society." The overall message argues against the regulation's treatment of transgender students and calls for teaching only traditional male/female views.


The commenter says public schools are harmed by "the rise in propaganda" and implies the proposed transgender policies are part of that problem. By contrasting the policies with "proper values," the comment clearly signals disapproval rather than support or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose the draft guidance" and asks, "Do everything you can to prevent the introduction of this agenda into Virginia's public schools." The rationale given is opposition to the policy's treatment of transgender students and concern that it undermines parental rights and moral values.


Policy regarding transgender idiologies for VA Beach schools

The commenter explicitly calls the policy "Totally UNACCEPTABLE and REPULSIVE" and asks to "Please let these sweet children keep their Innocence," which clearly rejects the proposed transgender student policies. The rest of the comment criticizes the policy by contrasting it with preferred school subjects, reinforcing opposition rather than support or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Oppose" and "I am strongly opposed to the proposed Transgender guidelines." They argue the policy would "further indoctrinate children" and object to shared restroom/locker room use, indicating rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "I oppose" and reinforces that rejection with "Completely Godless!". This indicates clear opposition to the proposed transgender student policies rather than a neutral or informational comment.


LBGQ information distribution in Va public schools.

The commenter says, "I vehemently oppose the inclusion" of this material in Virginia public schools and calls it "indoctrination." This is a clear rejection of the proposed transgender-student guidance and its inclusion in schools.


The commenter explicitly says, "I 100% can NOT support this focus" and rejects the policy’s emphasis on transgender/LGBTQ issues. They also object to "not having parents involved" and say they will not have "those ideologies taught to my children," indicating opposition to adoption of the regulation.


Virginia Department of Education (VDOE) draft LBGT proposal

The commenter says, "I strenuously object to the VDOE draft LBGT proposal" and states the policy "should be eliminated," which clearly indicates opposition to adoption. The comment also argues it "violates our 1st amendment rights," reinforcing that the commenter wants the proposal rejected rather than amended.


The commenter says they are "Opposed to forced views" and warns that "Damage may occur," indicating rejection of the proposed transgender student policies. The reference to people being "forced to submit without choice" suggests opposition to adoption of the regulation as written.


The commenter objects to government involvement in schools and asks, "Why must government take the right to parent?" They also reject the policy as unnecessary, saying "We don’t need Communism 101 in elementary school," which indicates opposition to adoption of the transgender student model policies.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy with "Absolutely not!" and describes it as "yet another draconian tactic" that would "force[] one set of views" on the public. This is a clear opposition to adopting the regulation.


Please Return to Science for Transgender Issue

The commenter says, "I strongly oppose the guidelines" and specifically objects to requiring teachers to use a student's preferred pronoun. They argue the policies would "place children at greater risk," indicating rejection of the regulation rather than support for it.


The commenter explicitly says they are "strongly opposed to the Transgender Mandates for public schools." They also argue these issues should be "left to the children and their parents," indicating rejection of the proposed policies.


The commenter rejects the regulation by saying, "Get back to teaching the 3 R's" and "Leave the moral guidance to the parents," which indicates opposition to the transgender student policies and a preference that schools not adopt them. The title "radical transgender ideology" further signals disapproval of the proposed guidance.


The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose" and asks to "Please stop confusing our children," which clearly rejects the proposed policies. The phrase "do not promote sexualized agenda" indicates opposition to adoption of the regulation as written.


New Virginia school policy pushing LGBT agenda on students

The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose this policy with every cell of my being!" and repeatedly argues against it as a "LGBT agenda" and an "atrocity." They also object to restroom access and say government leaders have "given leave of their senses," indicating clear rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly states, "I oppose this bill," which directly indicates rejection of the proposed regulation. The title, "Opposed Transgender education. It's the Parents task," reinforces opposition and a parental-rights concern.


The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose of this nonsense" and rejects the policy as "pushing LGQBT ideologies on our children." They also state they would "homeschool my children before" sending them to a district that adopts it, indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter says they have "two major concerns" with the model policies and explicitly asks that "changes should be made to this policy" to prevent parental exclusion and bathroom/locker room access issues. Although they acknowledge the need to prevent discrimination, the overall thrust is to weaken or revise the proposed guidance substantially.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, saying "Absolutely not acceptable" and demanding "an immediate cessation of this activity." The language about "indoctrinate our youth" and "radical agenda" shows clear opposition to adopting the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose such invasive and morally wrong ideology," which directly rejects the proposed policies. The statement that "Parents should be raising their children and not the state" indicates opposition to the regulation's role in schools.


The commenter explicitly says, "Please oppose the draft guidance" and repeats that it "needs to be opposed." They argue the policy is "dangerous" and ask officials to "prevent the introduction of this agenda" into schools, indicating clear rejection of the regulation.