The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, calling it "absurd, radical and dangerous" and saying it will have a "devastating effect on families." The statement that it is the parents' right and responsibility, "NOT the states," indicates opposition to state involvement through this regulation.


The commenter explicitly urges the community to "support ALL students" and says it is "up to all of us to provide them with protections," which clearly endorses the proposed transgender student protections. The comment frames the policy as necessary for a "safe and healthy environment" for LGBTQ students.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, calling it "beyond insanity" and saying "Adopting this or any similar policy is a crime." They argue against accommodating transgender students and frame the policy as morally and medically illegitimate.


Transgender policy: Do not like this policy document.

The commenter explicitly states, "I do not like the proposed Transgender policy," which clearly indicates rejection of the regulation. No supporting language or request for modification is provided, only a negative judgment of the policy document.


Support this policy and transgender students

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support the policies outlined in the document" and argues that transgender students "need to be supported by the school system." The comment endorses adoption of the policy to protect students from bullying and harassment.


The commenter explicitly states, "I strongly oppose this transgender school policy," which directly rejects the proposed regulation. No supporting or neutral language is provided.


The commenter says, "I strongly disapprove of this radical push," which clearly rejects the proposed policies. The language about "eliminate differences between females and males" and "brainwashing" indicates opposition to adoption of the regulation.


In Support of Model Policies on the Treatment of Transgender Students

The commenter explicitly says they are "writing in support of the Model Policies" and repeatedly endorses the proposal as "absolutely critical" and something that "will save lives." They also state that the rule "will make Virginia schools a better place to learn" and thank the agency for "safe and welcoming schools for all Virginia students."


STRONGLY DISAGREE!!! You cannot change your sex, no matter who says so!

The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, stating "STRONGLY DISAGREE!!!" and arguing "You cannot change your sex." The plea to "go back to normalcy again" indicates opposition to the transgender student policies rather than support for them.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose" and repeatedly asks to reject the policies, stating "I don't believe the State has authority over parents rights" and "Please leave America's children's identity values within the families." They also object to privacy provisions and facility access, calling them "unconscionable" and a "huge safety issue."


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly disagree" and "I vehemently oppose the policy," making their position clear. They argue the policy "furthers gender confusion," is "extremely dangerous," and repeatedly call to "Stop the lying!!!"


VDOE Transgender Student Inclusion Policies

The comment consists of a single word, "Support," which directly indicates approval of the proposed regulation. There is no qualifying language suggesting opposition or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do not approve or think necessary these proposed guidelines" and repeatedly argues against them as harmful, saying they "blur the lines between male and female" and "usurp parental responsibility." They also object to bathroom access, dress codes, and pronoun guidance, indicating clear opposition to adoption of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly calls the proposal "a violation of religious liberty" and says "The government is over stepping its bounds," indicating clear opposition to adoption. They also describe it as "a war on the U.S Constitution and Bill Of Rights" and say it should not be enacted in its current form.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support this!" and endorses the guidance as a way to protect students from discrimination. They argue it will help "eradicate" discrimination in public schools, which clearly favors adoption.


DANGEROUS FOR ALL YOUNG PEOPLE AND TOTALLY WRONG!!!

The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, calling it "DANGEROUS FOR ALL YOUNG PEOPLE" and urging officials to "STOP using our children in your social experiments." They argue the regulation would "endanger students" and create a "disturbing and damaging environment," which indicates clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY OPPOSE" and states the policies "MUST NOT be passed." They also describe the policies as "harmful to children" and claim they would "open[] a door for abuse," indicating clear rejection of the regulation.


Strongly support based on science and empathy

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support policies" and argues for allowing all students to learn in a "safe respectful environment." The comment also criticizes opposing views, indicating clear approval of the regulation rather than neutrality or opposition.


The commenter explicitly titles the remark "Strongly Support Model Policy" and states that "Every kid should feel safe at school regardless of their gender identity or gender expression." They also cite evidence about harms of discrimination and benefits of support, indicating approval of the proposed policy.


The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose this guidance document," which directly states opposition to adoption. They further object that it "encourages gender questions" for children who are "not ready to understand," indicating substantive disagreement with the policy.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support the policies outlined in the guidance document" and reiterates that "all students deserve to feel safe and supported." The comment advocates for enforcing the policies to prevent bullying and harassment, indicating clear approval of adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support efforts by the Virginia Department of Education to create a more inclusive learning environment" and repeatedly endorses accommodations for transgender students. Although they argue for sex-separated facilities and broader private spaces, these are presented as additions to the policy rather than rejection of it.


The commenter explicitly states, "I Strongly Oppose!" and the title says, "I Strongly Oppose the transgender policy." This is a clear rejection of the proposed regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly disagree with the effort to adopt policy" and ends with "I vehemently oppose the policy." They also argue it is "extremely dangerous" and repeatedly call to "Stop the lying!!!," indicating clear rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says the policies "should be fought against by all parents" and calls them "totally wrong," indicating clear opposition to adoption. The comment also argues the state should not keep "secrets from parents" about children, which is a direct objection to the proposed guidance.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose this misguided attempt," which clearly rejects the proposed policies. The criticism that the policies are "neither scientific or kind" and would "indoctrinate our children" indicates opposition to adoption.


Oppose this un-natural and unbiblical nonsense

The commenter explicitly says "Oppose this" and calls the proposal "un-natural and unbiblical nonsense," indicating clear rejection of the regulation. The statement that it "violates nature and nature's God" further shows opposition rather than a request for changes.


Squirrels are not dogs, cats are not fish, Men are Men and Women are Women period!

The comment rejects the premise of the transgender student policies by asserting, "Men are Men and Women are Women period!" This is a clear expression against recognizing transgender identities in the regulation.


VDOE model policy for treatment of transgender students

The commenter explicitly says the VDOE should "scrap this proposed policy," which is a clear rejection. They also argue it "usurps parental rights" and raises concerns about bathroom access and liability, indicating opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose this policy," which directly states opposition to adoption. They further object that it is not the school's or government's "place or right to keep secrets from parents," indicating they want the policy rejected because of parental notification concerns.


The commenter explicitly urges action to "improve the education system" and says "Protections and education benefit all students, not only LGBTQ+." This clearly endorses the proposed transgender-student protections and related guidance.


STRONGLY OPPOSE VDOE DRAFT POLICY FOR TREATMENT OF TRANSGENDER STUDENTS

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose VDOE's proposed guidelines" and repeatedly urges officials to "Stop this nonsense." They argue the policy is "dangerous to children and school staff" and that it undermines "parental rights," indicating clear rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose the proposed transgender policy" and argues it should not be adopted. They describe it as "harmful," "shameful," and as "endangering the lives of the young," which clearly indicates rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose," and repeatedly argues against the draft policies, saying they should not allow "children authority over parents and school staff" and calling the proposal "completely inappropriate and insanity." The comment also objects to privacy, bathroom, dress code, and sports provisions, indicating rejection of the regulation rather than support for it.


The commenter explicitly says, "I urge you to revise the proposed VDOE draft model policies" and argues the policy would cause "damaging effects," undermine parental rights, and create safety risks. Although they end by asking to "provide protections for both trans and cis gendered students," the overall thrust is to reject or substantially weaken the proposed policies as written.


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


The comment says only "LAST COMMENT SHOULD BE OMITTED," which is too vague to determine whether the commenter supports or opposes the regulation. Although the title says "STRONGLY OPPOSE," the body does not provide a clear substantive position on the proposed policy itself.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose the proposal" and objects to "teach[ing] students about gender identification" or anything that might cause them to question their gender. They also argue the issue should be handled "at home" or only with parent-approved counseling/clergy, indicating rejection of the policy as written.


The commenter explicitly calls the proposal "bad policy" and says it "is a violation of privacy for students," "undermines parents authority," and "discriminates against a Christian view of sexuality." These statements clearly reject the regulation rather than support it with changes.


The commenter explicitly writes "SUPPORT!!!!" and says "It is imperative to support ALL students!" This clearly endorses adoption of the proposed policies.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, writing "Absolutely NOT" and "VOTE NO." They argue it would "subvert the authority of the parents" and "undermine the right of every parent" to raise children according to their beliefs, which is a clear call to reject the regulation.


Proposed Virginia Transgender School Policy

The commenter explicitly says, "Our family strongly opposes this proposed state-wide policy!" and repeatedly argues against adoption, calling it "overgovernment" and "Bad!" They also criticize the policy's development and suggest it would harm youth, indicating clear rejection rather than a request for modification.


The commenter explicitly says "Oppose Model Policies for Treatment of Transgender Students" and argues the policies "violate other people's rights" and are "unlawful." They also reject the guidance as based on "unsubstantiated recommendations" and call for "much more research," indicating opposition to adoption as written.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Oppose" and urges, "Why add to the confusion? Stop playing politics..." They also reject a key element of the policy by stating, "Kids can be protected without boys using girls bathrooms," indicating opposition to adoption of the transgender student guidance.


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


The commenter says, "I am in complete support of transgender students having the freedom to go by the pronouns of their choosing," which clearly supports the policy's transgender-student protections. Although they object to "taking the parent communication off the table," they frame this as a request to modify the policy rather than reject it, saying they want to "support our transgender students" while keeping parents involved.


The commenter explicitly argues against the policy by saying, "Let us not put teachers and administrators between parents and their children" and that it is "not the role of the schools to affirm gender identity." The final sentence redirects schools to "writing, math, and reading," indicating opposition to adopting this transgender student guidance.


The commenter explicitly asks, "do not allow the transgender to use the same bathroom," which rejects a key part of the proposed policies. Although they add "We love them," the overall message is a request to block bathroom access for transgender students.


The commenter explicitly says they are "In opposition to transgender regulations proposed by VA Department of Education" and argues the policies "go far beyond" what was prescribed. They also say the model regulations "infringe the First Amendment rights of parents" and would "pit children against their parents," indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly calls the proposal "outrageous" and a "state wide... overreach," indicating clear opposition to adoption. They object to the policy's treatment of sex and parental involvement, saying it is "unprofessional and unscientific" and that students would be protected "from their own parents."


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose the transgender regulations proposed by the VA Department of Education." They argue against shared facilities, stating that no child should be subjected to sharing a "bathroom, locker room, hotel room" with someone of the opposite sex, which indicates rejection of the policy as written.


The commenter explicitly labels the proposal "OPPOSE" and repeatedly urges rejection, saying "You would be enabling a tragedy" and "Stop trying to normalize" transgender identity. The comment argues the policy is harmful and should not be adopted, framing it as "hyper accommodation" and a violation of others' freedom.


We have two sets of illogical children here; the gender-confused child, and the school Admin

The commenter rejects the policy’s premise, calling it "utterly illogical and absurd" and arguing that children should be treated according to their "biological sex." They also ask why the state would create "complex" and "unworkable" rules, indicating opposition to adopting the regulation.


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

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose the DOE's proposal" and objects to it being "statewide-and mandatory." They also argue it "mandates promotion of gender confusion" and "undermines the rights of parents," indicating rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly opens with "Strongly oppose" and argues the policy would have adults "keeping secrets with my children" and would "encourage children to keep secrets," which indicates rejection of the regulation. Although they say transgender-identifying kids "should be protected" from bullying, they still conclude that schools should not "saturate" or "encourage them to follow this way of life."


The commenter explicitly titles the submission "Opposed to the expansion" and says the topic "needs to be avoided by public employees," indicating rejection of the proposed transgender student policies. They argue that LGBT topics should be kept within families and characterize the guidance as harmful advocacy by educators, which is a clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I absolutely do not approve of these proposed guidelines!" and repeatedly argues against adoption, calling them "state overreach" and saying they "destroy that family unit". The comment urges rejection based on concerns about bathrooms, sports, and parental authority.


The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose both House and Senate bills" and argues the bills should not be adopted because they "deny parents" rights and "force children" to use pronouns they reject. The comment also claims the policies amount to "propagandize and indoctrinate," indicating clear rejection of the regulation.


Strongly Oppose BOE guidelines concerning gender at school

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose the Board of Education guidelines" and repeatedly urges that "We must stop these atrocious guidelines from going into effect." The comment argues against transgender accommodations on religious, scientific, parental-rights, and bathroom-access grounds, indicating clear opposition to adoption.


Further proof that public education is not fit for educating our next generation.

The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, saying schools should not "create policies" that "force all of [us] to live in the margins" and concluding, "This is not the way." They also argue to "work in the arena of anti-bullying policies" instead, indicating opposition to the proposed transgender student guidance as written.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY SUPPORT!!!! YES!!!! DO IT!!!!" and urges officials to "go through with this". They also state that the policy "means the world to transgender kids," which clearly endorses adoption.


The commenter explicitly says "Support!" and describes the policy as "a wonderful step in a progressive and safe direction," which clearly endorses adoption. There is no indication of reservations or opposition.


The commenter explicitly urges approval with phrases like "Support trans children" and argues the policies are needed to protect students from harassment, bullying, and harm. They describe the regulation’s goals as necessary for safety and well-being rather than opposing any part of it.


Oppose drafts on transgender policies HB145 and SB161

The commenter explicitly says, "I am opposed to the drafts on transgender policies, HB 145 and SB 161" and repeatedly argues schools should "NOT accommodate" them. The comment frames the policies as infringing parental rights and objecting to shared facilities and gender transition support, indicating clear opposition to adoption.


Transgender policies are inconsistent with reality

The commenter explicitly rejects the policy as "contrary to" reality and says the school board should "focus on science and deal in reality" instead of "subjecting students to lies and bizarre ideas." They also argue the policy conflicts with parental values and that it is not the board's job to "undermine those values," indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support the model policies for transgender students" and argues they are "vital for the health and well being" of these students. They also urge adoption by saying, "We need to put children first, and the model policy does just that."


The commenter explicitly says, "I totally disagree with this" and states they do not want their children exposed to it, indicating rejection of the proposed policies. The phrase "indoctrinated with said ideologies" shows opposition to the regulation’s underlying approach.


The comment explicitly says "End transgenderism," which clearly rejects the proposed policies supporting transgender students. The statement that it "makes God's plan for sex a mockery" shows opposition on religious grounds to the regulation's purpose.


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


I oppose new VDOE guidance's assault on children and parents

The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose" and asks officials to "protest against this policy" and "do everything in your power to oppose" it. They describe the guidance as "appalling," "dangerous," and an "assault" on children, parents, and freedoms, indicating clear rejection of adoption.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose!!" and describes the policy as "attempting to be shoved down the throats of those who oppose it," which clearly rejects adoption. There is no indication of support or neutrality.


The commenter asks, "Why subject all the children to this policy" and says, "It is not the school's place to address this issue," which clearly rejects the proposed transgender student policies. The statement that "We have enough problems relating to education why create new ones?" further indicates opposition to adoption.


The commenter rejects the premise of the policy, stating that being transgender is a "PSYCHOLOGICAL DISORDER" and calling support for it "SOCIOPATHY." This language clearly indicates opposition to adopting the transgender student policies.


The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose" and asks, "Please reject this proposal." They argue the policy should be left "to the parents and kids" and claim it would "encourage confusion," indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says the policy "tramples on the parental rights of all students' parents," which is a clear objection to the regulation. Although they acknowledge it "purports to be about keeping transgender students safe," the overall message rejects the policy on parental-rights grounds.


The commenter explicitly says "Vehemently Opposed" and states "This proposal is not EDUCATION but is instead INDOCTRINATION," which clearly rejects the regulation. There is no indication of support or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly says, "I object to the proposal" and argues the policy is "promot[ing] the LGBTQ agenda" and an "over reach" by schools and the DOE. They also say schools should not "encourag[e] a child to believe a lie," indicating clear rejection of the regulation.


Stop Inflicting Mental/Sexual Abuse on The Children

The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, saying "Stop it!! This is abuse of children" and that "Sexuality should not be discussed at all in the classroom." They also argue that "There are only two sexes" and that this is "the job of the parents," indicating opposition to transgender-inclusive school guidance.


The commenter explicitly says "OPPOSE!" and closes with "Vehemently oppose!" They argue the policy will "open the door" to more problems, create confusion, and should be stopped "before it goes any further."


Why are almost hours worth of negative comments apparently disappearing?

The commenter does not express support for or opposition to the transgender student policies themselves. They ask about a missing prior comment and whether "the Town Hall [is] being censored," which is a procedural complaint rather than a position on the regulation.


The comment explicitly says "Stop Sodomite Propaganda," which is a hostile rejection of the proposed transgender student policies. It provides no policy-specific reasoning, but the imperative clearly indicates opposition to adoption.


The commenter attacks the people behind the policy proposal, saying "These sick and twisted people should not remain employed by the state," which clearly expresses rejection of the regulation and its authors. The title, "Fire VDOE Employees behind the proposals," also indicates opposition to the proposed policies.


Evil Transgender Policies Create Environment of Predatory Grooming and Sex Abuse

The comment explicitly condemns the policy as "Evil Transgender Policies" and claims it creates an environment of "Predatory Grooming and Sex Abuse," which is a clear rejection of the regulation. There is no language suggesting support or a request for modification; it is purely oppositional.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy multiple times, saying "NO! This is absolutely awful" and "Leave things the way they are!" They argue it "undermines parents" and object to restroom access and student privacy provisions, indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, saying "This insanity cannot stand" and calling it "evil." The statement expresses clear condemnation of the proposed transgender student policies and implies they should not be adopted.


The comment uses hostile, mocking language toward the policy and its authors, calling them "The Gaystapo" and claiming they "force the gay on the kids." This clearly indicates rejection of the proposed transgender student policies rather than support or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, calling it "Absolutely absurd" and saying "It is wrong" and "Quit trying to indoctrinate children to explore their gender." They argue the policies are harmful to children, parents, teachers, privacy, and sports, which indicates clear opposition rather than a request for modification.


VDOE seeks to allow pedosadism to be institutionalized in the school

The commenter clearly rejects the proposed policies, claiming they would "allow pedosadism to be institutionalized" and create "spaces for the grooming of children." This is an explicit denunciation of the regulation rather than support or a neutral inquiry.


Virginia Regulars all about violating rights and violating children

The commenter explicitly condemns the policies, saying they "act in opposition to every right held sacred" and "promote the sexual abuse of children." This is a clear rejection of the regulation and argues against adoption in strong terms.


Say No to Transgender - Child Sex Abuse policies

The comment explicitly says "Say No to Transgender" and labels the policies as "Child Sex Abuse policies," which clearly rejects the proposed transgender student guidance. It offers no support or constructive changes, only a hostile denunciation.


The commenter explicitly calls it a "Immoral & dangerous policy" and describes feared harms from implementation, indicating clear rejection of the regulation. The body argues that girls will be harmed and that employees and students will be "entrapped" and "removed from schools," which is opposition rather than support or neutral feedback.


The commenter ultimately says, "good for VA for looking out for these children for bullying aspects" and notes schools should "take an equal stance in protecting children who do not identify as transgender as it does the children who do." Although they raise concerns about athletics and ask for separate sports divisions, the overall comment supports proceeding with the policy with changes rather than rejecting it.


Please respect a parents' right to walk with their children during emotional distress

The commenter explicitly says, "DO NOT PASS THE POLICY ON TREATMENT OF TRANSGENDERED STUDENTS," which is a direct rejection of the regulation. They also argue it "takes away parents ability to talk with their children" and puts staff in a difficult position, indicating opposition to adoption as written.


The commenter explicitly rejects the proposal, saying there is "no justification for this proposal" and warning that "no good will come of it." The title "Clear violation of parental authority" also signals opposition to adoption of the policy.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY OPPOSE!" and repeatedly urges "STOP THIS NONSENSE!" They object to spending "tax dollars" on accommodations for transgender students and call the policy "ridiculous" and "a joke," indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose this model of proposed guidelines for transgender students" and repeatedly argues against implementation. They claim the policy would create "more confusion," infringe on parental rights, and pose a "dangerous threat" in bathrooms, all of which indicate rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose" and asks, "Please don't disregard the rights of parents," indicating rejection of the proposed policies. The statement that "These sometimes irreversible transitions are not in the best interest of children" further shows opposition to adoption of the regulation.


Do not pass this!! This will destroy the family

The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose this" and opens with "Do not pass this!!" indicating clear rejection of the regulation. The rationale given is that it is "against the family" and "Christian Doctrine," which supports an oppositional stance.


The comment explicitly states "Strongly Opposed," which clearly indicates the commenter wants the regulation rejected. No supporting or qualifying language is provided.


The commenter explicitly says "I support" and adds that "Supporting trans students is one piece" of schools' purpose. This clearly endorses the proposed policies rather than opposing or questioning them.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, saying "This is absurd and has no place in our school system" and criticizing it as "pushing a leftist agenda." They also argue schools should focus on core subjects instead, indicating opposition to adoption.


All transgender education is contrary to Christian belief and child welfare interests

The commenter explicitly says "All transgender education is contrary to Christian belief" and "detrimental to the development of healthy children," which rejects the policy’s purpose. The statement that "The parents are the best ones to guide their children" further indicates opposition to school guidance on transgender students.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support this policy," which directly states approval of the regulation. They also endorse following "the students wishes" regarding disclosure to parents or guardians, indicating support for the policy's approach to transgender student privacy.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy with "No" and the brief body "Wrong," indicating opposition to the proposed transgender student policies. The religious statement "He created them man and women!!" suggests disagreement with the regulation's premise rather than support for adoption.


The commenter explicitly says there is "no legitimate reason to implement this policy change" and argues against adopting it in Virginia schools. Phrases like "the vast majority of parents do not support it" and "you are listening to a vocal minority" indicate clear opposition to the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY OPPOSE TRANSGENDER POLICY" and states that it is "against my beliefs" and "force[s] this on parents." This is a clear rejection of the proposed regulation rather than a request for modification.


The commenter explicitly urges officials to "stop any proposals" and to "pause and rethink" the policy, indicating clear opposition to adoption. They also reject the underlying transgender guidance as "radical transgender ideology" and call it "insane, unscientific curriculum."


The commenter explicitly labels the proposal "Against" and says "STOP IT," indicating clear opposition to the regulation. They argue it is "not a government place to intervene" and object to children keeping secrets from parents, which shows they want the policy rejected.


The commenter argues that schools are "falling behind" because "we don't focus on learning" and says to "focus on reading, writing, mathematics, history and science" instead. This implies opposition to the transgender student policies as a distraction from academic priorities, even though the comment does not mention the regulation directly.


The commenter repeatedly argues against the guidance, calling it "tragic," "nonsensical," and a "naked affront" to parents' guardianship. They ask rhetorically why Virginia would adopt it and urge consideration of "a better solution that does less harm," indicating clear opposition to adoption.


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

The commenter explicitly says, "Specific opposition" and argues it should not be the government's role to "institute LGBTQ material into the curriculum." Although they support stronger anti-harassment and anti-bullying measures, their overall position is against the model policies as written and favors making LGBTQ-inclusive curricula optional instead.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose VODE’s proposal" and characterizes it as "push[ing] an LGBT agenda in public schools." They also argue it "goes against" constitutional and religious rights, indicating rejection of the regulation rather than support or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly says, "I applaud the DOE's proposed policy" and titles the comment "Support policy." They endorse the regulation while suggesting implementation improvements such as "staff training" and "ongoing enforcement," which indicates support rather than opposition.


The commenter explicitly urges decision-makers to "turn this down" and "never approach the subject again," which is a clear rejection of the proposed policies. The opening line frames passage as "destruction" and says it would show "complete disregard to the health of our children," indicating strong opposition.


The commenter explicitly says "Very Much Opposed" and asks, "Please do not implement this policy." They argue the policy will promote "gender confusion" and be "self-destructive," indicating clear rejection of adoption.


The commenter explicitly labels the submission "OPPOSE" and says it will "do nothing but create more chaos and confusion," indicating rejection of the regulation. The religious objection "this is not of God" further shows opposition rather than a request for changes or clarification.


The commenter explicitly says "enacting this policy is not necessary" and concludes, "Let us continue... without interference from this bill," which clearly rejects adoption. They also argue it would hinder transparency with parents and create restroom discomfort, reinforcing opposition.


The commenter explicitly says, "I stand in strong support of these guidelines" and repeatedly praises them as making schools "more inclusive and equitable" and protecting LGBTQ+ students. They also thank the drafters and say Virginia should continue by "enacting these guidelines."


The commenter explicitly says, "I SUPPORT protecting transgender students" and "I support giving transgender students equal rights." They argue the policy is about "fair treatment" and should be adopted to protect transgender students.


The commenter explicitly says "oppose to this harmful bill" and "I am totally against the Transgender idea," indicating rejection of the regulation. They also argue that guidance counselors "should not enter into the discussion at all," which opposes the policy's support structures for transgender students.


Trangender Information to students in schools

The commenter says they are "very much OPPOSED" to schools becoming involved in transgender issues, which directly rejects the proposed policies. They also argue that discussions should be limited to "the child, their parents, and their doctors," indicating opposition to school implementation.


Object to Gender values imposed on all students

The commenter explicitly says the school district and government have "no place teaching our children" these "politically-charged and sexually confusing values" and argues such matters should be handled by parents only. They also say the policy should not be used to "propagandize students," indicating rejection of the regulation's approach.


The comment rejects the premise of the transgender student policies by asserting, "There only 2 sexes male and female. period." This is a brief categorical denial rather than support for the regulation, indicating opposition to the policy's underlying framework.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support The Model Policies for the Treatment of Transgender Students in Virginia’s Public Schools guidance document." They also reinforce approval by stating that opponents "need to study the evidence" and that "this is the correct way forward."


Reject this bill 145 and Senate Bill 161

The commenter explicitly says, "This Bill is to be rejected," which directly opposes adoption of the regulation. They further argue that the "ideological framework of gender theory" is "objectively false," indicating substantive disagreement with the policy's transgender framework.


Opposed:These tactics undermine parental & teacher authority; impingement upon everyones rights.

The commenter explicitly labels the proposal as "Opposed" and says the measures are "cause for upheaval, confusion and further discord," indicating rejection of the regulation. The phrase "undermine parental & teacher authority" also shows substantive opposition to the policy's adoption.


The commenter says the bill is "in direct conflict with students that are not LGBT" and argues that it would "punish[] girls and boys," indicating opposition to the regulation as written. The suggestion to use a separate gender-neutral bathroom is framed as an alternative to the proposed policy, not support for it.


The commenter explicitly says, "Strongly support these policies" and argues it is "essential to honor students' gender identity" by using pronouns and allowing self-identification. The comment also defends the policies as protection against harassment and discrimination for transgender students.


Do not hamper the development of Children

The commenter argues that adults should accept transgender/gender-fluid children and says, "don't you think we as adults should too!" They describe the child positively and criticize forcing children "into a box of conformity," which aligns with supporting the regulation's protections for transgender students.


The commenter explicitly labels the submission "Opposed" and repeatedly argues that the policy "usurps parental rights," "infringes on a teacher's right" to religious beliefs, and represents "government overreach." They conclude that the policy "does nothing" to improve school-parent partnership and should not be imposed.


The commenter explicitly says, "I am very much opposed" to schools becoming involved in transgender-related decisions. They argue these matters should be handled by "the child, their parents, and their doctors" rather than the school system, indicating rejection of the regulation's approach.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Opposed" and argues the policy "completely undermines the authority of parents" and is "not biblical," indicating rejection of the regulation. They also object to restroom and locker room access, saying it would make kids uncomfortable if "someone of the opposite sex" entered.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Oppose" and argues the policy "completely undermines the authority of parents" and is "not biblical," indicating rejection of the regulation. They also object to restroom and locker room provisions, saying it would make kids uncomfortable if "someone of the opposite sex" entered.


The commenter explicitly states, "I strongly oppose this," which directly indicates rejection of the proposed regulation. The title "Strongly opposed" reinforces that position.


OPPOSED - VIOLATES FIRST AMENDMENT FOR TEACHERS AND OTHER STUSDENTS

The commenter explicitly labels the proposal "OPPOSED" and says it "violates First Amendment" rights, asking officials to "Quit holding other's First Amendment rights hostage." The comment also rejects the underlying transgender guidance as a "political agenda" and says to "Quit using children as pawns," indicating clear opposition to adoption.


Strongly opposed- please do not hamper the development of children

The commenter explicitly says "Strongly opposed" and asks, "please do not hamper the development of children," indicating rejection of the proposed policies. The religious framing about being "made in the image and likeness of God" supports opposition to the regulation's transgender-related guidance.


The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose the institution of these new policies in the schools!" This is a direct rejection of the proposed regulation and indicates they do not want it adopted.


The commenter explicitly says, "I opposed the establishment of these new policies!" and the title also states, "Oppose new policies for VA schools!" This is a clear rejection of the proposed regulation.


Oppose this guidance document and policies developing from it.

The commenter explicitly says, "Oppose this guidance document and policies developing from it" and repeatedly urges, "Please do not" adopt it. The body argues the policies are harmful, describing them as "social experimentation" and warning they would "brainwash young children," which clearly indicates rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly labels the submission "Oppose" and repeatedly rejects the policy as "indoctrinating and confusing children" and a "political agenda." They also object to privacy and bathroom provisions, asking how schools can maintain safety if students use bathrooms "depending on how they feel that day."


The commenter explicitly says, "I STRONGLY oppose this guidance," and repeatedly argues that the policy is "dangerous" and harmful. They ask for "research be done on alternatives" instead of adopting the guidance as written.


The commenter explicitly says, "I DO NOT APPROVE OF THIS MOVEMENT" and argues the policy is "anti-Biblical" and that the government "does not have a right to do this." These statements clearly reject the proposed transgender student policies rather than supporting or neutrally discussing them.


The commenter explicitly rejects the proposed guidance, saying it has "totally lost touch with reality" and urging parents to "remove their children from the public school system" if this is the direction of public education. The comment argues the policy "undermines the relationship between parent and child," puts children "in harms way," and objects to bathroom and locker room access.


The commenter explicitly says "No to transgender policy" and argues it would "take parental control away," indicating rejection of the regulation. The religious condemnation and reference to "God's judgment" reinforce opposition rather than support or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose everything in this transgender proposal" and argues against "any more rules or regulations on this issue." They also prefer that authority be delegated to the local level rather than adopting a statewide policy, which indicates opposition to the regulation as written.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Opposed" and calls the guidance "crazy left-wing ideology run amok." They also argue it "subverts parents' rights" and is "a recipe for disaster," indicating clear rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly states, "I OPPOSE using the Transgender guidance in our schools," which directly rejects adoption of the regulation. The reference to "Check the Bible for guidance" reinforces opposition on religious grounds rather than offering support or neutral input.


The commenter explicitly says, "I am opposed to any school policy regarding gender identity" and argues the policies should "be left alone." They also call for promoting policies that "give special privileges to none," indicating rejection of the proposed transgender student guidance.


The commenter explicitly calls the proposal a "terrible Idea" and says it is "lacking in common sense," indicating rejection of the regulation. They argue that children should not be allowed to make "potentially life-altering gender decisions," which directly opposes the policy's treatment of transgender students.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose the proposed transgender guidelines." They also argue that "These accommodations are not appropriate for children" and that "the government needs to stay out of this matter," indicating rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "This is the wrong way to protect our Commonwealth's children" and argues against "a one size fits all mandate from the VDOE/Commonwealth." They reject preferred-pronoun requirements and claim schools should not interfere with parental authority, indicating opposition to the regulation.


The comment explicitly states "Opposed" and repeats "Opposed," indicating clear rejection of the proposed regulation. No qualifying language suggests support or neutrality.


The commenter objects to the policy as "forcing the majority of students to deal with things they don't agree with" and asks, "What girl wants boys in the bathroom with them?" This indicates opposition to the transgender student guidance, especially around bathroom access and perceived impacts on other students' rights.


The commenter explicitly says, "Do not adopt these standards," and argues the policy would confuse children, undermine parents, and force schools to conceal information from families. They also object to the state and LGBT-related guidance generally, indicating clear opposition to adoption.


Typical Moronic Progressive Democrat Nonsense

The commenter says they are "vehemently opposed" to the policy and repeatedly calls it "nonsense" that should not be imposed on schools. They argue it harms privacy, religious beliefs, and girls' sports, indicating rejection of the regulation rather than support or a neutral inquiry.


The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose the section of this policy" and repeatedly argues against it as a "poor policy." Their objections focus on parental authority, CPS threats, and the lack of psychological evaluation, all of which indicate rejection rather than support or a neutral inquiry.


The commenter explicitly says "strongly oppose" to the transgender guidelines. The follow-up, "how about we focus on math and reading," indicates they want the regulation rejected in favor of other priorities.


Fact: There are only two genders - male and female. Period!

The commenter explicitly says the proposal is "ridiculous and unconstitutional," calls it "idiocy," and states it "must be defeated and relegated to the trash heap." They repeatedly urge readers to "adamantly oppose this" and object to its effects on bathrooms, pronouns, athletics, and parental rights.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose transgender mandates for all public schools in Virginia" and repeats "NO mandated transgender laws." They also argue the guidelines are "impossible to enforce" and object that there are "NO options or separate public schools for religious groups who oppose this," indicating rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly calls the policy "an abuse" and says there is "absolutely no cause for it," indicating clear opposition to adoption. They argue it would force students into shared bathrooms/locker rooms and claim it would cause harm, trauma, and privacy violations.


The commenter explicitly says, "My family is strongly against these draft transgender guidelines" and repeats, "I am against these draft guidelines!" They also argue the policies "go completely against all religious teachings" and object to giving "an immense amount of power to the school system," indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "This is to register my opposition to the proposed transgender guidelines" and closes with "Please do not implement these policies." They argue the policies would infringe free speech, be hard to enforce fairly, and dilute parental authority, all of which indicate rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "Completely Against this" and "Do not do this," indicating clear opposition to adoption. They also describe the policies as "totally unworkable" and "a bad idea," arguing they would force compliance with beliefs they reject.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly support" and endorses "allowing transgender students to use their preferred gender in schools." They also add support for "genderless bathrooms with stalls," which aligns with the regulation's transgender student protections.


The commenter explicitly titles the remark "Strongly Support" and argues the guidance "is only creating a safe space for transgender students." They also criticize opponents of the policy, saying "By opposing, all we are doing is passing hate down to our children," which clearly endorses adoption.


The commenter explicitly says they "applaud all efforts of inclusion for trans students" and asks to ensure "these policies protecting our trans students is put into place." They also endorse specific provisions like chosen names, bathroom access, and sports participation, indicating clear support for adoption.


The commenter argues that "Sex education is a primary duty of parents; not the school" and says school curriculum should be "limited by parents; not the federal nor state government," which indicates opposition to the regulation or related school guidance. Although the comment does not mention transgender policies directly, it clearly objects to government-directed school instruction and oversight.


STRONGLY OPPOSE / Support ALL Children / Support Parental Rights

The commenter explicitly says, "I stand in strong opposition to this proposal" and repeatedly argues it is "not okay" and harmful. They object to perceived "subverting parental rights" and to bathroom/locker room access for transgender students, indicating they want the regulation rejected.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly support" and states "This bill makes sure that happens" in reference to keeping children safe in schools. The comment expresses approval of the regulation as a safety measure for students.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY SUPPORT" and praises the policy as "a long time coming." They also endorse the goal of creating "a safe space" for children, indicating clear approval of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose this policy" and calls the model policies "dangerous and destructive." They argue against affirming transgender students, saying it is "harmful" and that God created people "male and female without any fluidity," indicating rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Support" and argues that using facilities matching one's gender identity is "a basic human right." They also state that we should be "a more inclusive country," which clearly endorses the regulation's purpose.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly opposed transgender" and argues the policy "opens a myriad of long term issues" and is "destroying a generation." They also object that it is "stomped on" girls' equality in sports, indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY SUPPORT" and states that the Commonwealth should "absolutely support this initiative." They also frame the policy as providing "much needed support" and call it "a public health issue" and "a life and death issue," indicating clear approval of adoption.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose" and repeatedly rejects the policy, calling it "nonsense," "child abuse," and saying it "has no place in Virginia education." They also urge schools to "get away from this nonsense" and focus on core subjects instead.


The commenter explicitly says "i strongly support the model policies" and urges that "We must support our transgender kids." This is a clear endorsement of adoption of the regulation as written.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support this guidance document" and further endorses it as promoting "safety and inclusion." The comment argues the policies are needed because "All children should feel safe and supported at school" and that "Gender affirming policies promote safety and inclusion."


STRONGLY SUPPORT -- Supporting Trans Children IS Supporting Girls!

The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY SUPPORT" and argues the policies are necessary to protect transgender children. They reject safety objections, stating there is "no basis" for claims of harm and that supporting transgender children will make children "FAR SAFER."


STRONGLY OPPOSE transgender/ support parental rights/ stop the indoctrination

The commenter explicitly says they "strongly opposes" the policy and frames it as "forcing the transgender agenda" on their rights and freedoms. This is a clear rejection of the proposed regulation rather than a request for modification.


The commenter explicitly titles the comment "Strongly Support" and states that "Everyone deserves a chance to be treated equally, especially children," which clearly endorses the regulation's purpose. The phrase "Humans are humans!" reinforces approval of equal treatment for transgender students.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support requirements that Virginia schools support trans students and protect them from bullying." They also call the policy "a good start," indicating approval of adoption, possibly with room for improvement.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do not support any of this plan" and calls it "a disastrous plan," which clearly rejects the regulation. The stated reasons are that it is "taking away parental rights" and "inserting the government into family business."


ALL students deserve support and protection.

The commenter explicitly endorses the policy’s goals, stating that "ALL students deserve to learn in a place" where they are "protected from being discriminated against" and in a "safe and supportive environment free from harassment." This is a clear call for the regulation’s protections to be adopted.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support this guidance" and argues it is "essential that trans students are treated with respect." They also say the guidance will help schools be "more equitable" and provide educators with needed tools, indicating clear approval of adoption.


The commenter explicitly calls the policy "another bad idea from Richmond" and argues the state should "let families deal with the other issues" instead of addressing transgender students. The comment frames the regulation as a distraction from "true educational issues," indicating rejection of the proposed guidance.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support" and ends with "Please implement the proposed regulations." They also endorse the policy goals of "teaching equality," "treating all students with respect," and creating a "supportive and safe environment" for trans students.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose this legislation," which directly states their position. They also add that it is "against God" and "will do nothing but cause more problems," reinforcing rejection of the regulation.


The commenter says, "I unequivocally oppose" the policy and calls it "Absolute opposition to this LBGT agenda in schools." They argue it should not be pushed onto children and ask to "get back" to a different kind of education, indicating rejection of the regulation.


VA  mother of 4 strongly opposes Transgender studies in VA schools- stop sexualizing children

The commenter explicitly says she "strongly opposes" the policy and calls to "stop sexualizing children," which indicates rejection of the regulation. The rhetorical question about "common sense and morality" further signals disapproval of the proposed transgender student policies.


The commenter explicitly says they are in "strong opposition" and repeatedly asks officials to "vote against this very dangerous policy." They argue the guidance would threaten privacy, safety, sports fairness, and parental rights, all of which indicate rejection rather than support or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly appose" the policy and rejects "even the thought that a child could be educated in regard to transgender," which clearly opposes adoption. The title "Violation of God's Created order" reinforces a religious objection to the regulation.


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


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose this policy," which directly states opposition to adoption. The follow-up, "Politics, religion, and sexuality should be kept out of the schools!" reinforces rejection of the transgender student policy.


The commenter explicitly says, "I'm writing to register my opposition to the proposed legislation" and asks lawmakers to avoid enacting it. They argue it is "harmful to girls in particular" and raise concerns about "locker rooms and sports," indicating rejection of the policy.


STRONGLY OPPOSED to the TRANSGENDER SCHOOL POLICY.

The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY OPPOSED to the TRANSGENDER SCHOOL POLICY" and argues it is "harmful" and violates "social, moral and religious boundaries." This is a clear rejection of the proposed regulation rather than a request for changes.


The commenter explicitly titles the message "FULL SUPPORT" and asks, "Please add your support to these policies." They also state that the policies will "greatly improve the daily lives" and "safety" of transgender and non-binary students, indicating clear approval of adoption.


The comment explicitly says, "Please support trans kids," which clearly endorses the regulation’s protective treatment of transgender students. There is no language opposing or questioning the policy.


Strongly support: we must support ALL of our students

The commenter explicitly says, "I support this bill" and repeatedly argues that schools should "support all students" and "support and talk to their LGBTQ+ students." They also endorse specific provisions like bathroom access matching gender identity and teacher education, indicating clear approval of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I fully support transgender equality and rights," which directly endorses the regulation’s purpose. The rest of the comment criticizes opponents of transgender rights and urges acceptance, reinforcing support rather than opposition.


The commenter condemns transgender identity as a "lie" and "DEMONIC DECEPTION," indicating rejection of the policy's premise and likely opposition to its adoption. The reference to people going "against their given biological sex" and urging them toward religious redemption shows disapproval rather than support or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly says, "I fully support the proposed guidance" and praises it as "a more inclusive future" that protects "all students, regardless of gender identity." The final sentence, "Trans and non-binary rights are human rights," reinforces clear approval of adoption.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose" and argues the policy will "confus[e] them more about their sexual identity." They also state that the idea "violates science, social, religious common sense," indicating rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly titles the post "Support!" and argues that "There is no reason for discrimination" and that schools should be "inclusive and empathetic" toward transgender students. They also say policies that discriminate against trans kids are harmful, indicating clear approval of the regulation's protective intent.


The commenter explicitly says "Vehemently Oppose" and repeatedly urges the policy to be stopped: "Stop forcing your immorality" and "You do NOT have the support of Virginia citizens for this action." The comment objects to transgender inclusion in bathrooms, locker rooms, and sports, indicating clear opposition to the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY OPPOSE" and argues schools should not "encourag[e]/support" transgender students under these policies. They frame the regulation as "perpetuat[ing] a lie" and say schools should instead focus on academics, indicating rejection of the proposed guidance.


The commenter says they are "adamantly opposed to the transgender policy proposal for K12" and repeatedly argues against it, calling it "child abuse" and saying "Women are getting trounced by men again with this policy!" They also suggest existing anti-bullying policy is sufficient, implying the proposed regulation is unnecessary.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support this new guidance plan for schools" and explains it will help schools "best support all the children they serve." The comment is clearly in favor of the regulation and frames it as improving safety and inclusion for transgender and non-binary students.


The commenter explicitly says "Fully Supportive of this Policy" and closes with "fully support this new policy." They also argue it is "essential for trans students" to feel valued and that schools should provide a "safe and nurturing environment," which clearly endorses adoption.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY SUPPORT" and states the legislation is "absolutely critical" to transgender students' health and wellbeing. The body argues the policies "must be protected" and frames adoption as necessary for vulnerable students.


The commenter explicitly labels the proposal "OPPOSED!!!" and argues against allowing transgender students to use shared bathrooms and locker rooms, saying it is "absolutely insane" and "a recipe for disaster." They also object to the policy on privacy, safety, and athletics grounds, claiming it would take away his daughter's rights and scholarship opportunities.


I strongly support ALL children receiving quality education, which includes gender diverse kids.

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support" and calls the Model Policies "an important step" that will "help give educators tools" to support students. They also urge, "Keep doing the good work VA," which clearly endorses adoption of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "VEHEMENTLY OPPOSE!!!!" and repeatedly demands the policy be stopped: "Stop forcing your immorality" and "You do NOT have the support of Virginia citizens for this action." The comment objects to transgender inclusion in bathrooms, locker rooms, and sports, indicating clear rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "strongly oppose" and states "I refuse to keep my children in school if this gets passed," which clearly indicates rejection of the regulation. The comment argues the policy would increase "confusion" and force people to accept things "against our own will," showing opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support this legislation" and repeatedly endorses the proposed protections for transgender students. They argue that transgender students need "adequate protection and support" and thank the agency for considering it, indicating clear approval of adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support the guidance" and adds support for "all efforts to ensure that transgender students are treated with dignity, respect, and affirmation." This is a clear endorsement of adopting the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I AM STRONGLY OPPOSED TO THIS TRANS MANDATE FOR VIRGINIA SCHOOL!!!" This is a clear rejection of the proposed policies and indicates they do not want the regulation adopted.


The commenter explicitly says, "I Oppose!" and argues against allowing transgender students in shared locker rooms, calling the policy "unsafe and unwise." They request a different arrangement instead: "put the trans kids in their own locker room," which indicates opposition to the proposed policy as written.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support the guidance" and "I fully support all efforts to build inclusion." They also endorse "the fullest inclusion possible for LGBTQ+ students" and describe the policy as beneficial for safety and acceptance.


The commenter says, "I am 100% opposed to these policies" and repeatedly argues the regulation should not proceed unless major concerns are addressed. They object to parental exclusion, locker room access, lack of religious exemption, and claim it would be unconstitutional and harmful.


The commenter explicitly says "Please support our Trans and Non-binary students" and urges the state to make them "a priority." The comment endorses protection from "harassment and bullying," which aligns with adopting the regulation.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, saying it is "obviously wrong," "confusing and sad," and repeatedly demands "Stop what you are doing" and "Stop." The comment frames the regulation as "sexualizing children" and part of a "larger agenda," indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says "Respectfully oppose" and argues the policy is "an LGBTQ agenda" and a "lazy man's way to fix a problem," indicating rejection of the regulation. Although they briefly acknowledge the need to protect marginalized children, the overall message is that the policy should not be adopted in its current form.


The commenter explicitly says, "Please DO NOT pass" the policy and "PLEASE VOTE NO!!!" They describe it as a "destructive Transgender mandate" and say it is "morally wrong," indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I fully support this document!" and frames the issue as "Trans rights are human rights!" This is a clear endorsement of adopting the regulation.


The commenter is explicitly "Adamantly opposed to transgender policy!!" and says this should be left to "parents, NOT the government and not the schools." They also urge officials to "Go back to the basics of education," indicating rejection of the proposed guidance.


The commenter explicitly states "Full support" and says transgender students "absolutely deserve a safe and supportive learning environment." They further argue that "Anything less is discrimination," indicating clear approval of the regulation's purpose and protections.


The commenter explicitly says "Say No!!!!" and argues that the guidelines should not be imposed on children, criticizing school staff for "withholding information from parents" and "reporting parents". They also say they "cannot in good conscience support such a worldview being forced on our children," indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I greatly oppose this bill" and urges officials to "vote no on enacting this policy in the strongest of terms." Although they acknowledge that children should be protected from harassment, they argue the policy goes "far in excess" and should not be adopted.


The commenter explicitly says, "I'm opposed" and argues against the policies as an improper school intervention into family and religious upbringing. They frame the regulation as steering children away from parents' "religious values" and ask rhetorically whether it will make children "better people," indicating rejection of the proposal.


I oppose this policy because it irreparably harms the very children it's supposed to protect.

The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose this policy" and repeatedly argues it "irreparably harms" children. They urge rejection by claiming it creates resentment, harms girls in sports, burdens teachers, and worsens mental health outcomes.


I support this 100%. Trans students have the right to a safe place where they can be themselves.

The commenter explicitly says, "I support this 100%" and "very much hope it gets the support it needs to pass." They also praise the policy as protecting trans students' right to a safe place and affirm that "Trans and all LGBTQ+ rights are essential."


The commenter explicitly says they are "strongly opposed to these transgender policies for public schools in Virginia." They also argue the policies would "lead to gender confusion," "infringe on parental rights," and pressure staff to choose between "their values or their careers," all of which indicate rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly endorses the policy, saying "I thank the legislators who introduced it" and arguing that "Transgender children are... children" and deserve protection from bullying and harassment. The language clearly supports adoption of the regulation as a means of equal treatment and protection.


The commenter explicitly says "OPPOSE Transgender indoctrination" and argues that "The State has no business forcing transgender agenda on Virginia children." They also state that "Parents should always have control" and that "the state should stay out," indicating rejection of the proposed policies.


The commenter states plainly, "I oppose this!" and repeats, "I oppose this!" with no qualifying language. This is a direct rejection of the proposed regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "My opposition falls into two categories" and repeatedly rejects the proposed guidance, including "this is definitely not something the schools /teachers, should be involved with addressing" and "Students should use their birth-gender bathroom; no exceptions." They also argue the policies create "a very dangerous precedent" and call for parental control over any discussion of transgender issues.


The commenter explicitly states, "I am against this Policy," which directly indicates opposition to adoption. No supporting reasons or qualifications are provided, but the stance is unambiguous.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose this decision" and argues against the policy on competitive fairness and safety grounds. They also propose an alternative—"a separate space for transgender women to compete, and separate teams"—which indicates rejection of the regulation as written.


The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose the proposed policies" and repeatedly argues the regulations should be "rewritten" or rejected. They describe the policies as "unscientific and delusional," claim they would create "chaos and division," and object to bathroom, dress code, and athletics provisions.


Support trans gender children in schools

The commenter explicitly asks to "Please continue to protect these (trans)children" and to "allow them to have a normal school experience," which clearly endorses the regulation’s protections for transgender students. They also describe the experience as "nothing but a positive experience," reinforcing support.


Please stop this aggression into student lives. If you want to help, find the right way to do it!

The commenter explicitly rejects the policy as "aggression into student lives," calls it "an LGBTQ agenda," and says it is "the lazy man's way to fix a problem-extreme solutions." They argue it will "protect one group and mess up the other" and urge the state to "Do better, VA," indicating opposition to adoption as written.


I'm transgender and public knowledge like this could have saved me in high school

The commenter explicitly says, "I support this document" and argues that educating young people about transness and allowing exploration and expression "will literally save lives." The comment frames the policy as beneficial for children's safety and mental health.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose!" and argues that "gender neutral rooms are not allowed," indicating rejection of the proposed transgender student policies. The stated reason is framed as child safety, but the overall position is clearly against adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I am in strong support of policies and protections for our trans students" and urges, "PLEASE support and protect our trans students!!" This clearly endorses adoption of the regulation. The comment also argues against rejecting it by warning not to let "hate and fear" drive decisions.


The commenter explicitly says "Oppose this policy" and argues it "goes way beyond" bullying prevention. They object to the policy as "mandatory promotion of politicized, sexualized ideology," claim it encourages children to "deceive their parents," and say it would force teachers to use "politically correct pronouns."


The commenter explicitly says, "Please vote NO," and argues that officials should not "enforce gender promotion" in schools. The comment frames the policy as threatening "bodily privacy and safety of our children," indicating clear opposition to adoption.


Inclusive learning environments save our kids' lives

The commenter explicitly states "strong support for the Virginia Department of Education's guidance on inclusive learning environments for trans and non-binary youth." They also urge the state to "include and nurture the trans and non-binary youth in our state," indicating approval of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I am against transgender school policy," and argues the policy should not be adopted. They also object to bathroom access and parental control concerns, stating it is "opening the door to crimes" and that parents should keep control of their children.


The commenter rejects key parts of the proposed transgender student policies, arguing it is "not... fair" for transgender girls to compete in girls' sports and that they cannot "fathom permitting transgender persons into the same restroom" as their birth sex. They propose restricting restroom access and limiting participation, which indicates opposition to the regulation as written.


The commenter explicitly says, "I am strongly opposed to these 'model' policies" and argues they are "not good for our children." They also object to schools keeping matters from parents and say schools should not "push an ideology or social agenda," indicating rejection of the regulation.


If you truly care about students, don't vote for this!

The commenter explicitly says, "please don't support this policy" and "don't vote for this," which clearly rejects adoption of the regulation. They argue it would harm students' health and well-being, citing a personal experience and claiming "too many lives are negatively affected" by these ideas.


The commenter explicitly says, "I STRONGLY AND WHOLEHEARTDLY OPPOSE everything that you are trying to pass off" and repeatedly calls the policy "stupid" and "nonsense." They argue it should not be taught in schools and frame it as harmful to children and parental rights.


The commenter explicitly endorses an inclusive and safe environment for all children, saying "All children deserve a learning environment that is inclusive and safe." They also support greater LGBTQ+ and trans understanding and say "Every opportunity and tool should be utilized" to help children, which aligns with adopting the regulation.


Transgender Ideology Endangers Women, Especially Girls

The commenter explicitly says, "We NEED to fight and WIN this battle against Transgender Ideology," indicating rejection of the proposed transgender student policies. They argue the policies harm girls through athletics, bathrooms, locker rooms, and medical transition, which shows clear opposition rather than a neutral or supportive stance.


Violates Va Statutes and Va and US Constitutions -Part 2

The commenter repeatedly argues the guidance "violates" Virginia statutes, the U.S. Constitution, FERPA, and parents' rights, and says it is "unsafe" and should not be used. They describe the policies as a "speech code" and claim the model policies create "serious safety problem[s]," indicating clear opposition to adoption.


Strongly Disagree Parents weren’t notified about this policy being implemented

The commenter explicitly says they "strongly disagree," wants officials to "pull the policy," and says they will not send their child to school under it. They also describe the policy as "a disgrace" and call for a separate bathroom or removal of the policy, indicating clear opposition rather than a request for modification in support of adoption.


Violates Va Statutes and Va and US Constitutions -Part 1

The commenter repeatedly argues the guidance is "seriously flawed," "endangers children," and "violates Virginia statutes and both the United States and Virginia Constitutions." They explicitly say the model policies "exceed the authority mandated by the enabling legislation" and call the guidance "propaganda," indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy’s approach, saying schools should have "no business in defining gender or in guiding students in these areas." They describe helping young people "redefine" gender as "harmful" and a "lie," indicating clear opposition to adoption of the transgender student policies.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly support" and describes the policy as "taking important steps towards inclusion and visibility for transgender youth." They also call it "vital school policy for the 21st century," indicating clear approval of adoption.


The commenter explicitly says the issue "should be left up to parents" and that it is "not the Dept. of Education's right to decide what is acceptable/not acceptable," ending with "STAY OUT OF IT!" This clearly rejects the proposed guidance and argues against state involvement.


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


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy with the title "Stop this nonsense!" and states, "Parents do not want this for their children!" This indicates opposition to adopting the transgender student model policies.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, saying officials "do not have a public mandate to enforce gender promotion" and calling it "disgraceful and immoral." They also argue it would "jeopardize the bodily privacy and safety of our children," indicating clear opposition to adoption.


Strongly oppose  VDOE Policy for Treatment of Transgender Students

The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Oppose!!!!!!!!!!" and frames the policy as harmful, claiming it will "erode and eventually destroy Democracy" and "destroys" the family. This is a clear rejection of the regulation rather than a request for changes.


The commenter explicitly praises the state for taking steps to ensure that "all students" are treated fairly and says they "only hope" others become "less discriminatory and more accepting." This clearly endorses the policy's inclusive intent and supports adoption.


The commenter explicitly says they are "Strongly opposed to policy in current form" and states that "there is a much better way to go about it than this current policy requires," which indicates rejection of the proposed regulation as written. The mention of existing anti-bullying laws and treating students with respect does not change the overall opposition to this policy.


The commenter explicitly says "STONGLY REJECT THIS" and argues the policy would strip parents of control over their child's gender status. They also warn that if parents object, they could face "re-education classes" or have the child removed, which shows clear opposition to adoption of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says the policy is "fiercely opposed," which clearly indicates rejection of the regulation. The phrase "Stepping all over Christians" suggests the objection is rooted in religious opposition to the transgender student policies.


The commenter explicitly endorses the policy’s purpose, saying we "must now extend this knowledge and acceptance to the trans children in our public schools" and "welcome, protect and provide for all trans people in all public spaces." This is a clear call to adopt and support protections for transgender students.


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

The commenter explicitly says, "I am strongly opposed" and asks to "Reject the Model Policies." They argue the policies conflict with religious beliefs, are not based on "biological science," and "intrude into the parent/child relationship," all of which indicate opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I STRONGLY OPPOSE," and argues the policy is a "parental rights issue" that schools should not implement "without parental consent." They also say the policies would adversely affect the majority of students and that they deserve to be "PROTECTED," indicating rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Oppose," indicating rejection of the regulation. The body reinforces this by arguing the policy will "sow confusion" about transgender identity and characterizing it as a condition that "resolves independently," which is a substantive objection to adoption.


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


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose the Statewide Transgender School Policy" and repeatedly asks, "Please, please do not do this to our educational system." They argue the policy will "create more" confusion, "set our schools up for more bullying and violence," and increase "division and hatred," all of which indicate rejection of the regulation.


OPPOSE!! OH GOD TURN THE HEARTS OF THE SAULS INTO PAULS IN JESUS" NAME!!!AMEN! !!SO BE IT!!!

The commenter explicitly begins with "OPPOSE!!" and repeatedly condemns the policy as "this act of perverseness." The rest of the comment uses religious quotations to argue against the regulation and those who support it.


The commenter explicitly says, "My family and I completely oppose any and all legislation" and asks, "Please oppose this policy." They argue it would be "detrimental" and should be rejected so teachers can focus on academics instead.


Oppose!  Let boys be boys and girls be girls

The commenter explicitly says "Oppose!" and rejects the policy as part of "this evil" and "promoting this." They also urge alternatives like "home schooling and/or Christian schools," indicating they do not want the regulation adopted.


Adamant opposition to the proposed transgender guidelines

The commenter explicitly states "Adamant opposition" and asks, "Please do not adopt these or any similar guidelines." They also frame the policies as efforts to "normalize LGBTQ behavior" and argue for preserving parental control, indicating rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly asks not to "impos[e] opposite sex kids into their bathrooms and locker rooms" and says this would be a "violation of safety, well being and privacy." They do offer an alternative—accommodate transgender students "in other ways"—but the overall position is against the regulation’s bathroom/locker room provisions.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support all efforts to support transgender and non-binary youth," which clearly endorses the regulation's purpose. The title "Strongly Support" reinforces that the commenter wants the policy adopted.


The commenter explicitly condemns the policy as "wicked, disgusting, and morally wrong" and says "That is what you promote when you support transgender rights," indicating clear opposition to the regulation. The closing line, "Let kids be kids," further signals rejection of transgender-related school policies.


Strongly OPPOSE proposed Model Policies for Treatment of Transgender Students

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose the proposed model policies" and repeats that they are "STRONGLY OPPOSED" and urge representatives to "OPPOSE adoption." The body argues the policy is harmful, promotes a "one sided agenda," and threatens religious freedom and privacy, all indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says they "OPPOSE" the regulation and repeats that they "want it to be publicly known." The rest of the comment uses religious condemnation and scripture to argue against the policy as an "act of perverseness."


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support the guidance" and explains that it would help "all students can receive an education in a safe and inclusive environment." This is a clear endorsement of adopting the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "OPPOSE Transgender Policy!!" and argues "This is NOT the answer!!" indicating clear rejection of the regulation. The statement that it "will harm ALL our precious children" further shows opposition based on perceived harm.


The commenter explicitly says they "strongly oppose transgender legislation for schools" and argues Virginia needs legislation to protect students "from transgender agenda," indicating rejection of the proposed policies. The language is clearly opposed to adoption rather than requesting changes.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose these new mandates" and repeats, "I strongly oppose!" They also object that teachers are "not trained" for this role and that they do not want parents "pushed out of the parenting role," indicating rejection of the policy.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose transgender legislation for schools," which directly rejects the proposed policies. The phrase "protect public school students from transgender agenda" also indicates opposition to the regulation's purpose.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose," which clearly indicates rejection of the regulation. The follow-up question, "where is this going?" does not add support or nuance to the position.


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

The commenter explicitly says, "I am opposed to this proposal" and argues the changes will be harmful. They cite concerns about "confusion," "a distraction," and fear for "the safety of my child" if restroom access is based on identified gender.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose transgender legislation for schools," which clearly rejects the proposed policy. The earlier sentence about officials lacking a mandate and "jeopardize the bodily privacy and safety of our children" reinforces opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says "strongly oppose" and adds "No transgender legislation unless straight students are protected," indicating rejection of the proposed transgender student policies unless conditions are changed. The comment does not support adoption as written; it argues against the regulation in its current form.


Oppose. VDOE proposal does not balance well-being of All Students

The commenter explicitly begins with "Oppose" and says the "current VDOE proposal does not focus on the well-being of all children." They argue it would "inject confusing policy" and "disenfranchise parents," indicating rejection of the regulation as written.


Strongly Oppose: Policies Violate God's Created Order, Defy Science, and Endanger Religious Liberty

The commenter explicitly says they "strongly oppose" the Model Policies and repeatedly states that they "should undergo major amendments" and that they "oppose these policies." Although they express support for protecting transgender students from bullying, the overall position is that the policies are "misguided," "discriminatory and unconstitutional," and should not be adopted as written.


Transgender promotion in K_12 public schools

The commenter explicitly says "Strongly opposed" to the proposed transgender student policies. The stated reason, "for the health and safety of our children," indicates they want the regulation rejected rather than adopted.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose the Model Policies" and repeatedly argues against adoption, asking to "Please slow down." Although they affirm respect for all students, their overall position is that the policies should not be ratified because they violate parental rights and would harm sports and privacy.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support this guidance" and argues that policies are needed to protect LGBTQ students from discrimination and make schools "inclusive to all." The comment endorses adoption of the guidance as a means of improving safety and support.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose these actions," which clearly indicates rejection of the proposed regulation. The title "Oppose!" reinforces that position.


The commenter explicitly says officials do not have a mandate to enforce the policy and claims it would "jeopardize the bodily privacy and safety of our children," which indicates rejection of the regulation. The phrase "gender promotion" is used pejoratively to oppose the proposed transgender student guidance.


The commenter explicitly says, "i am AGAINST this!" and "Do not allow this to go forward," which clearly rejects the regulation. They also argue it is a "terrible idea" and warn it would invade children's privacy and modesty, indicating opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I am strongly opposed to this policy" and argues it will "victimize and irreparably harm many children." They also describe it as a "crazy, whacky" move and say private schooling is now a must, indicating rejection of the regulation.


model policy proposal for "transgender" students

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose the model policy proposal for 'transgender' students!!!" This is a direct rejection of the regulation with no qualifying support or suggested amendments.


VA Department of Education policies on the Treatment of Transgender Students

The commenter explicitly argues against the draft policies, saying they "seem instead more like the repressive policies of a totalitarian government" and urging Virginia to protect "freedom of speech and conviction and freedom of religion" instead. They object to bathroom access, changing areas, sports participation, and the policies' treatment of biological sex, indicating they want the regulation rejected or substantially weakened.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose Transgender promotion in publicly funded schools" and "adamantly oppose the use of bathrooms and locker rooms by the opposite gender." They reject the policy’s approach to transgender students, though they suggest a separate gender-neutral facility as an alternative.


The commenter explicitly urges rejection: "Please do not do this to our children!!!!!!" They argue the policy would expose children in bathrooms and make them feel "unsecure and unsafe," indicating opposition to the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "strongly oppose transgender legislation for schools" and repeatedly argues against the policy on religious grounds, asking how parents could "change what GOD has created." The language clearly rejects the regulation and calls for "TRUTH and RIGHTEOUSNESS" instead of the proposed approach.


Supporting HB 145 and SB 161 re VDOE guidance on LGBTQ

The commenter explicitly says, "I fully support these bills to strengthen VDOE guidance," which clearly endorses adoption of the regulation. The personal context about being a grandparent to a transgender person and friend to LGBTQ people reinforces that supportive position.


Against Transgender bill have anti-bullying -enough

The commenter explicitly says, "Please do not pass this!" and argues the policy "goes way beyond prevention" into "mandatory promotion" of an ideology. Although they support anti-bullying protections, their overall position is clearly against adopting the proposed regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "stronly oppose" and argues that the "Transgender policy can not solve their problems" and would "do them more harm than good." They also ask officials not to "enforce gender promotion" in schools, indicating rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support this policy" and explains that it is "incredibly important" for students to feel welcome and protected. They also endorse specific provisions like using a student's "correct pronouns and chosen name" and say the policy would "afford all students more protection."


The commenters explicitly say, "Please Do Not Implement This Policy" and repeat "Please do not put this policy into action." They argue it is "pushing an agenda," "confusing," and would create problems around bathrooms, sports, and parental convictions, indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says "strongly oppose," which clearly indicates rejection of the proposed policies. The title "transgender mandates for public schools" also frames the regulation negatively as unwanted mandates.


The commenter explicitly says, "I'm proud to support this guidance" and argues that it would help schools "provide a safe and inclusive educational experience for all students." The comment endorses the policy as a way to better support trans and non-binary students and LGBT youth.


The commenter explicitly says the Department of Education should "abandon these guidelines immediately" and argues the policy would endanger girls, be unfair, and expose schools to lawsuits. The comment repeatedly objects to bathroom access, overnight trips, and sports participation for transgender students.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY SUPPORT" and argues that "Supporting trans students is important" and that leaders should "protect and support minorities of all types." This clearly endorses adoption of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I am strongly opposed to implementing this dangerous policy" and asks, "Please do not endanger our children by implementing this policy." They argue the policy would be harmful and should not be adopted.


Enforced transgender  promotion in schools

The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY OPPOSE" and asks to "STOP!" the policy. They argue it amounts to "enforce[d] gender promotion in schools" and say it "confuses a child," indicating rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose this!" and repeatedly argues against the policy, calling it "anti-scientific transgender ideology" and "utterly false and destructive." They also urge government and institutions not to "force" acceptance of the policy, indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The comment explicitly says "STRONGLY OPPOSE!!!" which clearly indicates rejection of the proposed regulation. No supporting arguments or qualifications are provided beyond the emphatic opposition.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Support" and adds that "This is good for all children, regardless of their gender or sexuality." This clearly endorses adoption of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly titles the submission "Support" and states that "Trans rights are human rights" and that everyone "deserves to be protected, supported, and respected." This clearly endorses the proposed transgender student policies.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose transgender legislation" and threatens to withdraw their children from public schools if the policy is adopted. They argue against restroom access for transgender students, saying "Stop the insanity," which indicates rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose new guidelines" and argues that officials should not "enforce gender promotion in taxpayer funded schools." They also claim the policy will "jeopardize the bodily privacy and safety of our children," indicating clear rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "DO NOT support any policy" and frames the regulation as something that would "further illness," indicating clear opposition to adoption. The title, "Oppose Furthering Gender Confusion," reinforces that they want the policy rejected.


The commenter explicitly says, "I Don’t Support This At All" and argues against the policy as a "radical change" that would "endanger 97% of the students." The comment clearly rejects the regulation and frames it as harmful and politically motivated.


All people should be treated with dignity, compassion and respect

The commenter explicitly says, "My family is in favor of adopting the Model Policies" and repeatedly urges schools to "ensure that ALL students are treated equitably." They also argue to "support transgendered youth" and conclude that protecting transgender students is "what we must do."


Strongly oppose this legislation.  Please do not pass this legislation.

The commenter explicitly says, "I am strongly opposed to this legislation" and "Please do not pass this legislation." They also argue it would endanger girls, allow restroom/changing room access by "a person of the opposite gender," and harm girls' sports, all of which indicate rejection of the proposed policies.


Please do not implement this policy.  Gender is a biological fact, not an opinion.

The commenter explicitly says, "Please do not implement this policy," which is a direct rejection of adoption. They also argue that "Mandating the use of transgender pronouns violates the 1st Amendment," indicating substantive opposition to the regulation's requirements.


The commenter explicitly says, "I absolutely do not support this!!" and argues against the policy by insisting people should "use the bathroom according to what you are equipped with." The comment frames the regulation as dangerous, claiming it "opens the door for so many bad things, including sexual assault."


The commenter explicitly says "ABSOLUTELY NOT, DO NOT IMPLEMENT THIS" and repeatedly argues the policy is "terrible" and "Simply not ok." They object to reduced parental knowledge, bathroom access, pronoun requirements, and school-wide accommodation of transgender students, while suggesting only a separate safe space instead of the proposed policy.


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


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly disagree with this" and calls the policy "awful," indicating clear opposition to adoption. They also object that "the school system is going to teach my kids that any of this is ok" and insist "This is for parents to deal with, not the educational system," which rejects the regulation's role in schools.


The commenter explicitly says "Oppose this 100%" and repeatedly condemns the policy as "absolutely insane" and "ridiculous." They argue it would allow "a child to be in the bathroom with the opposite sex" and increase bullying and safety risks, indicating clear rejection of the regulation.