Abandon NOW VADOE‘s model policies for transgender students

The commenter explicitly calls for the policies to be abandoned: "Abandon NOW VADOE‘s model policies" and describes them as an "egregious overstep." They also argue the policy is a "stunning betrayal" that will harm Virginia public schools, indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says "Oppose this proposal" and repeatedly argues it should not be in schools, stating "THIS does not fall under the umbrella of family not school" and asking to "Please oppose this getting a seat in the classroom." The comment frames the policy as inappropriate for classrooms and unnecessary because of the small transgender population.


Will the rights of self-identifying Muslims and Christians also be protected to the same extent?

The commenter questions whether the policy would force religious students to "deny the tenants of their religious identity" and asks "why are we making exceptions for others?" This frames the regulation as unfair and suggests it should not be adopted in its current form. Although the comment begins by acknowledging an "inclusive environment" is "a laudable goal," the overall thrust is opposition based on religious rights concerns.


The commenter explicitly says, "Totally opposed!" which clearly rejects the proposed regulation. The word "Ungodly!" reinforces opposition on moral grounds rather than offering support or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly rejects the regulation, saying they "cannot believe" the department would enact rules "opposed to parental beliefs" and calling the policies a "regulated non education agenda." They also argue the policies are "harmful" and would deny children privacy, indicating clear opposition rather than a request for modification.


Oppose: Deception of Parents is against every Child Safety Rule

The commenter explicitly labels the proposal "Oppose" and repeatedly argues against school involvement in transgender-related matters, calling the guidebook "misguided but dangerous." They object to staff discussing students' personal life without parental consent and say, "We are asking you to educate, not parent our children."


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose!" and argues that the policy should be a "parents decision and involvement." They also warn it will "break families apart" and object to not involving parents in decisions for their child, indicating clear rejection of the regulation.


Model Policies for the Treatment of Transgender Students

The commenter explicitly says, "I am in favor of your efforts" and endorses making schools places where students are "free from bullying, harassment, and discrimination." They also specifically support a "supportive environment for all students, including transgender students," which aligns with adoption of the policy.


The commenter explicitly titles the comment "Against" and calls the policy a "ludicrous idea," indicating clear rejection of the regulation. The remark that it will drive families toward "homeschooling, charter schools, and private schools" further signals opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Oppose" and repeatedly argues against the policy, especially on locker room access, privacy, and parental notification. They frame the regulation as harmful, asking "Who is behind insanity such as this?" and warning it will cause "mental and emotional pain."


The comment explicitly states "Strongly opposed" twice, which clearly indicates rejection of the proposed regulation. It provides no supporting details or qualifications beyond that direct opposition.


Strongly Oppose Draft model policies for the treatment of transgender students!

The commenter explicitly says the policy is "dangerous," has "no business" in schools, and repeatedly urges that we "must NOT accept" the DOE's attempt to implement it. The title also states "Strongly Oppose," and the body argues against transgender-inclusive bathroom, locker room, privacy, and parental notification provisions.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose!" and argues that "This should be a parents decision" and that the policy's secrecy will "break families apart." These statements clearly reject the proposed transgender student policies rather than support them.


The commenter rejects the policy’s premise, saying it should not “deny biological reality” and should not “encourage socially contagious fallacies.” The reference to potential “permanent psychological and physical damage” indicates opposition to adopting the transgender student policies as written.


Model Policies on the Treatment of Transgender Students.

The commenter explicitly says, "I am writing in support of the Model Policies on the Treatment of Transgender Students" and repeatedly argues that the rule will improve safety, inclusion, and equal treatment. They conclude, "This proposed rule will make Virginia schools a better place to learn for transgender and nonbinary students," which clearly endorses adoption.


These Policies Will Traumatize Children.

The commenter explicitly argues against the policies, saying they "will traumatize children" and warning that "if these policies go into effect" families will be uncomfortable with public schools. The comment frames the regulation as harmful due to bathroom/locker room access and CPS reporting concerns, indicating rejection rather than support or neutrality.


Experimental, pseudo science must not be inflicted on developing minds.

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose the measure proposed" and argues it should not be adopted. The body frames the policy as harmful "indoctrinate children" and predicts "catastrophic effects," indicating clear rejection of the regulation.


The commenter calls the policy "absolutely disgusting" and says they are "terrified" to send their children if people think it is acceptable. They also predict "a rise in sexual assault and harassment," indicating clear rejection of the regulation.


STOP ABBUSE of INNOCENT CHILDREN ~ OPPOSE THIS!!!

The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose this appalling promotion" and frames the policy as harmful. They also reject the underlying transgender framework by stating, "There are only 2 genders, MALE and FEMALE," indicating opposition to adoption of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, calling it "child mental abuse" and an "assault on their real identity." They argue the policy denies "the truth about biology" and emphasize that "You CAN NOT change DNA," indicating opposition to adoption of the regulation.


Parental Rights Should Not Be Easily Dismissed

The commenter argues against the regulation by saying, "Please do not force you ideology on parents and children" and warns that dismissing parental rights would "remove the parental rights of everyone." They explicitly state that decisions about children should be made by "each individual family, not the state," indicating opposition to state guidance on transgender students.


The commenter explicitly says, "Please do not force you ideology on parents and children" and argues that "It is up to each individual family, not the state," which rejects state guidance over transgender student treatment. The focus on "parental rights" and concern about the state dictating morality indicates opposition to the proposed regulation.


The commenter explicitly calls the policy an "assault on teachers" and says it is "subjective, arbitrary, and indefensible," indicating rejection of the regulation. They also object to "demanding that teachers follow the whimsical nature of a child" and emphasize parental control, which is inconsistent with the proposed transgender student guidance.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, saying it is "not the Virginia Government's place" and urging, "Let our kids be kids and our parents parent." They object to the guidance as undermining parental rights and as inappropriate for young children, calling it "sex ed designed for adolescents to be forced on elementary kids."


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, saying it is "NOT your responsibility" and calling the guidance "wrong" and an attempt to "brainwash the children." They also urge the board to focus elsewhere, indicating opposition to adopting the regulation.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, saying it should be "up to the parents" and that if schools teach "something that many of us do not agree with" they will "vote you out." The references to homeschooling and removing children from school indicate opposition to the regulation's content and implementation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose implementing the proposed policy agenda" and argues it has "no business being implemented" in schools. They also claim it will "degrade the quality of education," indicating clear rejection of the regulation.


The comment explicitly rejects the policy with "No" and the phrase "leave our children alone," indicating opposition to the transgender student guidance. It provides no supporting reasons or requested changes beyond rejecting the regulation.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, saying "My tax dollars should not be used for THIS!" and "Teaching transgenderism is NOT the responsibility of the schools." They also ask to "Stop encouraging our children" in connection with the regulation, indicating opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose the specific parts of the recommendations" and identifies the concern as school involvement "between the parents and the child." Although they express support for schools being "kind places that are accepting of all students," the overall position is opposition to the proposed policy as written.


The commenter explicitly says "OPPOSE the proposed transgender guidelines!" and argues they are a "radical violation" of religious freedom and speech. They also say taxpayer money should not support "this sort of manipulation," indicating rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly opposed" and argues the policy is "the wrong age and place" and a "radical experiment." They also object to schools/state involvement and say they should not "remove the parents from the conversation," indicating rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose Model Policies" and ends with "Please do not support this!" They argue the policies should not be adopted because they believe gender is fixed at birth and that the policies would "teach" children to "embrace gender dysphoria."


The commenter explicitly says, "Please reconsider the recommendations contained herein," and describes the policy as a "radical and militant perspective" that should not be enforced. Although they begin with "We should treat everyone with kindness," the overall message rejects the proposed guidance.


The commenter explicitly says "HIGHLY OPPOSED" and argues against public school teachers "brainwashing students" and against the policy interfering with parents' authority. The final sentence, "Let parents be parents and allow the teachers to teach the subject areas for which they were hired!" clearly rejects the regulation's approach.


The commenter clearly rejects the policy, warning that it will "encourage operations that can't be reversed" and calling it a "Dangerous precedent." The opening phrase, "The state is not the parent," also signals opposition to state guidance on transgender student treatment.


The commenter explicitly labels the comment "oppose" and argues against schools affirming transgender identities, saying children should not "transition" and that "Let parents form children, not the school system." The overall message rejects the proposed policies as a harmful "distraction" rather than supporting them with changes.


The commenter explicitly calls the policy "repressive and hypocritical" and says coercing compliance is "totalitarianism." They object to pronoun use, bathroom sharing, and threats of punishment, and ask why the VDOE is "treating... Christians... Jews and Muslims, differently," indicating opposition to adoption of the policy as written.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy as "a pure flight from reality and sheer insanity" and calls it "child abuse," indicating strong opposition to adoption. The final line that "the cure is much worse than the disease" further shows they want the regulation rejected rather than modified.


The comment is explicitly titled "Strongly opposed" and the body rejects the policy with a rhetorical question: "How can any sane person think this is a good idea???" This clearly indicates opposition to adopting the regulation.


Please vote against the Department of Education Draft .

The commenter explicitly says, "Please vote against the DOE draft" and argues it "over steps those bounds," indicating clear opposition to adoption. They frame the policy as undermining "parental values" and parental authority over children's education.


The commenter explicitly calls the bill "ludicrous," says it is "absolutely wrong," and concludes "LEAVE PARENTING TO THE PARENTS," indicating clear opposition to adoption. They object both to school involvement in gender-related issues and to bathroom access provisions, saying the government and schools are "over stepping."


The commenter says, "I strongly oppose allowing that to be pushed on our kids," which clearly rejects the proposed transgender student policies. The statement that it is "up to the parents" and "not your job" indicates opposition to school/system involvement in this area.


Curriculum proposal re transgender subject

The commenter says, "This is wrong on every level," which clearly rejects the proposed transgender student policies. The reference to "the harm we cause to our children" indicates opposition based on perceived moral and child-related harm.


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

The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose new VDOE guidance" and urges, "Do not impose this on our kids and parents." They argue the policy is inappropriate and should not be introduced in schools, indicating clear rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says they are "against all special allowances for LGBT indoctrination of our children," which rejects the proposed transgender student policies. They also frame the regulation as contrary to "Christian moral values" and call it part of a harmful "march toward removing our Republic form of government," indicating clear opposition rather than a request for changes.


This is NOT Transgender Protection this a promotion of confusion and Violation of Parental Rights

The commenter explicitly says the bill is "nothing short of a disaster" and that "It must not be passed." They repeatedly argue it violates "Parental Rights," threatens safety/privacy, and conflicts with religious beliefs, all indicating clear opposition to adoption.


No- This is demonic and anyone who supports it supports evil. That’s what true charity sounds lke

The commenter explicitly says "No" and repeatedly condemns the policy as "demonic," "evil," and "child abuse," which clearly indicates opposition to adoption. Phrases like "This should be a huge red flag" and "Stop offending God" reinforce that they want it rejected.


The commenter says the school has "no right teaching something that a parent must choose to teach their child," which rejects the policy’s role in schools. They also argue teachers already have "more to teach than we have time to teach already," indicating opposition to adopting this guidance.


oppose pathetic, ruinous "woke" ideologies in our schools

The commenter explicitly says "oppose" in the title and condemns the policy as "pathetic, ruinous 'woke' ideologies in our schools." They argue the guidance would "cruel[ly]" tell children they may not be their sex and would undermine "natural modesty, sensitivities, and religious beliefs," indicating rejection of the regulation.


The commenter rejects the policy outright, saying it is "not the Government Responsibility" and that the State should not "force that which is unnatural". The statement that the State cannot "make people believe a lie" indicates opposition to adopting the transgender student policies.


The commenter explicitly says "please protect transgender, LGBTQ students" and asks to include them "in curriculum," which clearly endorses the regulation’s goals. The request to "Educate students, staff, and parents" further supports adoption rather than rejection.


The commenter explicitly rejects the proposal, saying "NO I DO NOT SUPPORT THIS AT ALL!!! VOTE NO!" They also argue it is "hideous" and call for parents to be left in control, indicating opposition to adoption of the regulation.


Opposition to VDOE draft for school policy pushing LGBT agenda on children

The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose this" and calls the policy "overstepping boundaries" and asks legislators to "stop this immediately." The comment argues the school should not address children's sexual orientation and frames the proposal as an attack on family values, indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, saying school staff "should not be expanded" to "force their own radical and un-Godly ideas" and calling it "anti-Biblical." They argue it would create "confusion and chaos," indicating opposition to adoption of the transgender student policies.


The commenter explicitly rejects the proposal, calling it "hideous" and saying it "should be up to the state" to teach children about transgender ideologies, while arguing it violates "religious freedom" and "God's law." The final sentence says it should be up to parents, indicating opposition to the regulation's approach.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, stating "We do NOT Agree With THIS!!!" and "DO NOT AGREE!!!!" They also threaten escalation if it is adopted: "Push THIS and I / We Will No Longer be subtle!!!"


The commenter explicitly says "Absolutely Opposed" and calls the policy "garbage," urging schools not to "cow-tow to this perversion." They also argue schools should reject the policy and "get back into the business of teaching," indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says "Oppose" and repeatedly argues the policies "violates the rights of everyone involved" and "would only further hurt a child." They also state the policies would force their family to seek other schooling options and withdraw support, indicating clear rejection of adoption.


Model Policy changes for transgender students in Virginia public schools

The commenter says, "These changes will traumatize the students," which clearly expresses harm and opposition to adopting the proposed policies. No support for the regulation or any constructive modification is offered.


The comment explicitly says, "Please support!" which directly endorses adoption of the proposed regulation. There is no qualifying language or criticism.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Oppose" and asks, "Please do not let this pass." They argue the policy is harmful because it allows children to make major decisions and because "Not disclosing these things to parents" harms families.


The commenter explicitly labels the submission "Oppose" and argues against the policy by saying, "We cannot experiment with our children on gender" and calling related support "child abuse." The comment rejects the underlying transgender student guidance and urges a different approach instead of the proposed policies.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Oppose" and argues the policies are "reckless" and would "cause harm to children, parents, and teachers." They also say the policies are a "flagrant attempt by the state to usurp the role of parents," indicating clear rejection of adoption.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, calling the transgender guidelines "completely opposed to science" and urging, "Stop forcing your anti-science destructive agenda." This is a clear call to reject the regulation rather than adopt it.


Please vote AGAINST Transgender treatment in schools

The commenter explicitly says, "Please oppose the proposed guidelines" and "vote against the proposed guidelines." They object to the policy as reducing parental role and state involvement in child-rearing, indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly calls the transgender guidelines "a terrible idea" and says "Stop lying to our children," which clearly rejects the proposed policies. The comment argues against recognizing transgender identities as "normal, natural or in anyway healthy," indicating opposition to adoption of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly states, "I strongly oppose the Transgender policy for Virginia's public schools." This is a clear rejection of the proposed regulation with no qualifying support or request for changes.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support this guidance" and urges "the rapid promulgation of this guidance and these policies." This is a clear endorsement of adopting the regulation as soon as possible.


The commenter explicitly says, "Strongly oppose the forced transgender policy in public schools," which clearly rejects the regulation. The phrase "forced transgender policy" indicates opposition to adoption rather than a request for changes or clarification.


Model policies for the treatment of transgender students in the VA public schools

The commenter explicitly states, "I strongly oppose the model policies for the treatment of transgender students in VA public schools." This is a direct rejection of the proposed regulation with no qualifying support or requested changes.


Strongly Opposed to Proposed Policy on Transgendered Students in Public Schools

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose the proposed Virginia policy on Transgendered Students in Public Schools." They also state it is "contrary to good science, medicine, and common sense," indicating rejection of the regulation rather than support or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Oppose" and argues that the Department’s proposed policies should not be adopted because they threaten "bodily privacy and dignity" and would allow "members of the opposite sex" access to gendered facilities. The comment also says the policies would "pit children against their parents," indicating rejection of the regulation rather than support or neutrality.


Pitiful situation.  Sorry for transgender body.  Please don't force policy on majority of children.

The commenter explicitly says, "Please don't force policy on majority of children," which rejects the proposed guidance. The rest of the comment frames transgender identity as "sin" and "ungodly," indicating opposition to adopting the policy.


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


STRONGLY support - All children deserve to feel safe and accepted at school

The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY support" and "I fully support these policies." They also argue the policies are necessary so "ALL children feel safe and supported in schools," indicating clear approval of adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose the suggested transgender policies," and frames the proposal as harmful by calling it "very confusing for children" and a "slippery slope." Although they acknowledge that children should not be bullied, the overall position is clearly against adoption of the policies.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose" and argues the policy would let students make gender claims "without providing any evidence" and would prevent schools from notifying parents. These statements show clear rejection of the regulation as written.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Oppose" and argues the proposal is "un-American and dangerous." They reject the regulation as an overreach that would "usurp parental rights" and "jeopardize the privacy and safety of our children," while urging officials to instead "Enforce the existing anti-bullying policy."


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly support these policies" and frames them as beneficial and "life-saving" for youth. They also cite medical authority, noting "The American Academy of Pediatrics is in agreement" and describing "the importance of providing gender-inclusive care."


The commenter clearly rejects the policy, অভিযোগing that it is "Erasing girls from athletic scholarship opportunities" and "forcing girls to get undressed in front of biological males." The language is accusatory and asks "WTH is wrong with you?", indicating opposition to adoption of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Oppose" and rejects the policy as "ridiculous." They also state, "You will not teach my children these depraved lies," which clearly opposes adoption of the transgender student policies.


The commenter explicitly says "Highly oppose!" which directly rejects the proposed policies. The title "Taking my rights as a parent" suggests the opposition is tied to parental rights concerns.


The commenter explicitly states, "I Strongly Oppose," which directly indicates opposition to adopting the regulation. No additional details are provided to suggest any nuance or support for changes.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly disapprove of this resolution" and asks officials to "vote NO." Although they express sympathy for transgender children, they argue the policy would burden "the other children in the school system" and do more harm than good.


Strongly opposed  to proposed policy on transgendered students in public schools

The commenter explicitly states "Strongly opposed" and repeats "Opposed to proposed policy on transgendered students in public school!" This is a clear rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says it is "highly important to support the rights of trans students" and argues that "Safe and affirming educational environments for all students" should be a major goal. They also endorse trans students participating fully in activities, including sports, which aligns with adopting the regulation.


The commenter explicitly labels the submission "Oppose" and says the policy "goes way beyond prevention" and is "mandatory promotion" of an ideology. They argue it is "irresponsible" and potentially "damaging," indicating clear rejection of the proposed regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose this anti-scientific policy!" and repeatedly argues against adoption, calling it "harmful" and saying it should not be imposed in schools. The comment also objects to parental override and alleged deception of parents, indicating rejection of the regulation rather than a request for modification.


STRONGLY OPPOSED TO PUTTING IDEOLOGY BEFORE SCIENCE

The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY OPPOSED" and argues the policy "ignores elemental biology" and promotes "a social agenda that harms ALL children." They frame the regulation as harmful and call it "child abuse," indicating clear rejection of the proposed policy.


The commenter explicitly says, "This policy seems to be well thought-out and nuanced" and ends with "Thank you!" indicating approval. They also praise its effort to "balance the needs of both student and family" and its alignment with court cases, which supports adoption.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Oppose" and urges officials to "vote NO and dismiss this proposal." They argue it "undermines parental rights" and is "damaging to children," which clearly indicates rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support these guidelines" and urges officials to "continue to support them with these guidelines." The rest of the comment reinforces approval by praising the policies as based on "science, evidence, and empathy" and arguing they help children feel safe and supported at school.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose any guidance and policy" and argues the policies are "unnecessary overreach." They also claim the guidance will "create an unsafe environment," indicating rejection of the regulation rather than support or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly asks to "Please pass any in all policies" that allow people to express their gender identity, indicating clear support for adoption. The comment also praises transgender youth and expresses concern about their struggles when not accepted.


Strongly oppose-protect ALL children, parental rights, 1st Amendment Rights

The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose" and repeatedly argues the guidelines should not be adopted, calling them "harmful to children" and saying the Department "can and must do better than what is currently being proposed." The comment asks for protection of parental rights, religious conscience, privacy, and girls' sports, all framed as objections to the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "Strongly support trans youth" and argues that "They deserve to be treated with respect and consideration," which clearly endorses the regulation's purpose. The comment offers affirmative support rather than criticism or a request for changes.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY SUPPORT" and argues that "trans youth" deserve "fair treatment" and to be treated "with respect and consideration." This clearly endorses adoption of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly states, "I strongly support this guidance and these policies," which directly endorses adoption of the regulation. There is no qualifying language or criticism suggesting opposition or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly says, "Strongly oppose this shameful agenda," which clearly rejects the proposed policies. The phrase "shameful agenda" indicates opposition to adoption rather than a request for modification.


The commenter explicitly rejects key parts of the proposed policy, saying to "continue the current designation of school bathrooms" and objecting to "the proposed change of pronouns" as "disruptive and impractical." They also ask that parents be kept informed and that schools not teach related content, indicating opposition to the regulation as written.


The commenter explicitly writes "Oppose" and argues that "School is not the place to teach children gender identity," indicating they do not want the policy adopted. The statement frames gender identity as a family matter rather than something for the education system, which is a clear rejection of the regulation's purpose.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose this shameful policy," which is a direct rejection of the proposed regulation. The word "shameful" reinforces that they want it rejected rather than adopted with changes.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose the transgender policy" and argues it makes her daughter feel unsafe in bathrooms and locker rooms. She asks for an alternative like a "bathroom nongender," indicating rejection of the policy as written rather than support for adoption.


Oppose the new trans law. This is extremely harmful.

The commenter explicitly says "Oppose the new trans law" and repeatedly argues against the policy, calling it "extremely harmful" and saying "I will have no part in it." They object to school support for transgender students, bathroom/locker room access, and the policy's impact on parental authority and safety.


The commenter explicitly says the policy "must be nullified" and argues that allowing gender-identity-based facility access is "dangerous." The comment opposes the regulation on safety and privacy grounds, especially regarding bathrooms and locker rooms.


The commenter explicitly says, "Thank you Virginia DOE for these policies!" and "I am in full support." This is a clear endorsement of adopting the regulation, with no qualifying objections.


Strongly support the rights of all children, oppose this policy that infringes on those rights

The commenter explicitly says they "oppose this policy" and repeatedly argues against implementation, stating it would "cause real psychological damage," be "physically dangerous," and show "disregard for the hard work" of female athletes. The final sentence asks that rights be considered "before implementing such a policy," indicating opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says "OPPOSE!" and argues that officials should not "enforce gender promotion" in schools. They also claim the policy would "jeopardize the bodily privacy and safety of our children," indicating clear rejection of the regulation.


The comment explicitly states "Strongly Oppose," which clearly indicates rejection of the proposed regulation. No additional details or qualifications are provided.


The commenter explicitly states, "I do not support this being implemented in the schools," which is a direct rejection of the proposed policies. The title "Oppose" reinforces that the commenter wants the regulation not to be adopted.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly OPPOSE!!!" and argues that "nothing else should ever change" a child's sex, which rejects the regulation's transgender student policies. The religious framing reinforces opposition to the proposed guidance.


FINALLY! Making sure kids aren't abused and everyone is educated appropriately.

The commenter explicitly praises the policy, calling it "fantastic" and saying it is "making sure that there are things in place for transgendered kids to be equal and have a safe and secure atmosphere." This clearly endorses adoption of the regulation and its protections for transgender students.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Oppose" and argues that "Children need privacy" and should not be "joined with other children of the opposite sex" in bathrooms and locker rooms. This indicates rejection of the proposed transgender student policies, especially around facility access and privacy.


The commenter explicitly says "100% OPPOSE" and repeats "I do not agree with this idea." They also reject the policy as "crazy," indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose these policies," which directly states opposition to adoption. The added claim that "They will hurt children" reinforces a negative view of the regulation.


What happened to the lefts agenda to defendan the rights  f all females regardless of age?

The commenter argues that the policy is unfair and says it puts "the rights of the LGBT+ community and especially the Trans community in front of" women's rights, calling it "Shameful!!!!!!!!!" This clearly વિરોધs adoption of the regulation as written.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly OPPOSED" and argues the policy is "harmful" and should "be stopped." They also object that it would take rights away from parents and impose "political agendas," indicating rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support these bills" and endorses "any legislation that supports basic decency and respect" for LGBTQ+ and trans kids. They also state it will help schools be "a safe place," indicating clear approval of the regulation.


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

The commenter explicitly says the policy "should not be approved nor implemented" and repeatedly argues against it as "politically biased, unscientific," and harmful. They object to provisions on self-identification, bathroom/locker room access, and participation in sex-segregated activities, concluding that "Self-identification by a minor child should not be the criteria."


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, saying officials should not "promote transgender school policies" and asking to use tax money to "provide and protect" instead. The comment frames the regulation as endangering "bodily privacy and safety" and putting children and teachers "in harms way," which indicates clear opposition.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Oppose" and repeatedly rejects the proposal, calling it "wrong" and urging officials to "reconsider these rules." They object to transgender students' rights, privacy from parents, and fears about access to girls' spaces, all indicating opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says "Utterly Oppose" and urges officials to "Stop" the policy. They argue against transgender inclusion in sports and facilities, stating girls should be with "biological girls" only and asking to "keep sports fair" and "keep girls physically and psychologically safe."


The commenter repeatedly condemns the policy framework as "Gender Tyranny" and says "We must demand more" to stop it, indicating clear rejection of the transgender student policies. The body argues that schools are "hiding their children’s new identity from them" and frames the guidance as harmful indoctrination, which shows opposition rather than support or neutrality.


The comment strongly rejects the policy’s premise, repeatedly framing transgender identity as harmful and illegitimate, e.g. "Transgenderism Attacks Our Fundamental Humanity" and calling it "a social falsehood." It also argues the policy threatens women’s privacy and safety in bathrooms, sports, and shelters, indicating opposition to adoption of the regulation.


We must protect our transgender youth - thank you

The commenter explicitly thanks the agency for "taking the very important steps to protect our transgender youth," which clearly endorses the regulation. There is no language indicating opposition or neutrality.


Support parents and Oppose this legislation

The commenter explicitly says, "I encourage opposition to this legislation" and argues it would "substitute school officials for parents." They also object to privacy and notification provisions, saying the legislation has a "nefarious nature" and should inform parents about restroom-related concerns and all incidents of bullying or harassment.


Opposed 100% leave these kids alone let them grow up than if they want to change so be it.

The commenter explicitly says "Opposed 100%" and urges to "leave these kids alone," indicating rejection of the proposed transgender student policies. They also object to "pushing these ... ideologies on them," which shows opposition to the regulation's approach.


The commenter explicitly states, "I support the guidance," which directly endorses adoption of the proposed regulation. The title "LGBTQ+ in Public Schools" is consistent with support for the transgender student guidance.


Totally OPPOSED to the transgender policy.  Harmful and utterly inappropriate in our schools..

The commenter explicitly says, "I am totally OPPOSED to the proposed transgender policy" and ends with "Please DO NOT allow this policy." They argue it would "promote gender confusion," hide information from parents, and allow bathroom access they view as unacceptable, all of which indicate clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy as a "liberal transgender ideology" and says "The policy does NOT propose" a proper approach, ending with "Stop trying to be the parent." The comment argues the regulation harms other students, infringes religious freedom, and undermines parental authority, all of which indicate opposition to adoption.


This is not a teachable school project. Teaching is not mind control. Teaching is math, science, etc

The commenter rejects the policy as outside the proper role of schools, saying it is "not a teachable school project" and that "Sexual orientation is not their domain." They also argue the issue involves a "miniscule population that does not need addressing in the schools," indicating opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose this heavy handed policy" and argues the schools should not be "promoting gender dysphoria" or teaching it in every grade. They also say it is "idealogy over science" and "Not your mission," which clearly indicates rejection of the proposed regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose" and asks, "Please oppose this new curriculum for all our children." They object to teacher training and instruction on gender identity, and argue against the policy's approach to parental notification and transgender inclusion.


The commenter explicitly says "Halt!" and objects to the policy as "mandates promotion of gender confusion" and a "campaign to overthrow the moral law," indicating clear opposition to adoption. The repeated calls to stop the policy and the negative characterization of transgender-related guidance leave little ambiguity.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Oppose," which directly states their position against the regulation. The body reinforces this opposition by calling it "So harmful to children" and saying it "encourages lying to parents."


The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose transgender in public schools," which directly rejects the proposed policies. They also argue schools should focus on academics and that "personal matters" should be taught at home, indicating opposition to the regulation's subject matter.


The commenter explicitly says, "Strongly Oppose!!" and repeats, "We strongly oppose this!!" This is a clear rejection of the proposed regulation, with the added claim that it is "unconstitutional" reinforcing opposition.


Strongly oppose transgender Ed and bathroom/locker sharing between sexes

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose" the policy and objects to "transgender education, bathroom sharing between sexes, and transgenders being able to play sports on opposite sex teams." They also argue it is "damaging and unfair" and call it "insanity," indicating clear rejection of the regulation.


Oppose transgender Ed and shared restroom/lockers

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose" the policy and objects to "transgender education," "sharing restrooms and locker between sexes," and transgender students playing on opposite-sex teams. They also state they will "never send my daughters to public schools as long as this practice is condoned," indicating clear rejection of the regulation.


Gender Identity Policies in VA public Schools

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly OPPOSE this legislation," which directly states their position against adoption. The additional phrases "anti-God, anti-family, and anti-American" reinforce a negative view of the proposed policies.


The commenter explicitly says, "I TOTALLY oppose teaching transgender education in our schools" and asks, "Please DO NOT allow this policy." They also argue it conflicts with family beliefs and express concern about bathroom access, indicating rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly labels the submission "OPPOSE" and repeatedly argues the policy is "a lie" and "runs counter to God's Word." They say it would "harm the other children" and should not be based on "a very small minority," indicating clear rejection of the regulation.


The commenter argues the policy will cause "confusion and distress" for their special needs children and says the issue "needs to be considered" before adoption. They frame the suggested accommodation as problematic and conclude that the policy creates "a dilemma that needs to be addressed," indicating opposition to the regulation as written.


The comment title says "Oppose Gender equality in public schools," but the body only repeats the regulation description verbatim and does not clearly state support or opposition to the proposed policies themselves. Because the substantive text is copied from the proposal rather than expressing a position, the stance is too vague to classify confidently.


Strongly opposed - teach the basics - stop the indoctrination

The commenter explicitly says "Strongly opposed" and frames the policy as "indoctrination," indicating rejection of the regulation. The request that kids be taught "basic reading, writing and arithmetic" instead of "someone else’s philosophy" shows opposition to the transgender student guidance.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly OPPOSE this legislation," which directly states their position. They also frame it as "anti-God, anti-family, and anti-American," indicating rejection of the proposed policies rather than support or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy with "No, no no!" and calls it "indoctrination," indicating opposition to adoption. The demand to "Teach real HISTORY and MATH and ENGLISH" suggests they want schools to focus on other subjects instead of this guidance.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose" and argues that officials should not "enforce gender promotion" in schools. The reference to jeopardizing "bodily privacy and safety of our children" indicates rejection of the proposed policies rather than support or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly says "Strong support for this policy!" and repeatedly endorses it, stating "I commend the Department of Education on taking this step" toward making schools "welcoming, safe, and supportive for all students." The comment argues the policy benefits transgender students and aligns with pediatric recommendations, indicating approval rather than criticism.


The commenter explicitly says they "strongly appose" the guidance document, which clearly indicates opposition to adoption. The statement is direct and unambiguous, with no qualifying support or neutral inquiry.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose the proposed FCPS K-12 transgender changes." They also object to "teaching/promoting" and "keeping parents out of decisions," indicating rejection of the regulation rather than support for it.


The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose government officials having a public mandate to enforce gender promotion in all taxpayer funded schools," which directly rejects the proposed policy. They also argue it would "jeopardize the privacy and safety of our children," indicating substantive opposition rather than a neutral concern.


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

The commenter explicitly says they are "very strongly OPPOSED" and repeatedly states "my opposition to this policy guidance." They argue it is "very harmful" and an "overreach," indicating clear rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose" and argues that officials should not "enforce gender promotion" in schools. They also claim the policy would "jeapardize the privacy and safety of our children," indicating rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "Totally oppose," which directly rejects the proposed regulation. The phrase "God's word is truth!!!" indicates a religious objection rather than support for the policy.


The commenter explicitly says they "strongly support protecting trans youth" and urges Virginia to provide "equitable and just treatment." They also endorse specific provisions like allowing trans students to "play sports and use the bathroom" matching their gender identity, which indicates clear support for the regulation's goals.


The commenter clearly rejects the policy, asking "Why are we making an issue of bathrooms" and expressing disapproval with "Shame on whomever has brought this to the floor." The comment frames the regulation as harmful "confusion" for children and asserts a binary view of sex, indicating opposition to transgender-inclusive school policies.


The commenter says, "government and schools should implement a choice for transgender kids to build a bathroom for them," which endorses providing accommodations for transgender students. Although the title says "Strongly opposed," the body text clearly supports the policy goal of transgender-specific bathroom access rather than rejecting the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support requirements that schools support trans students and protect them from bullying," which clearly endorses the regulation. Calling it "a good start" further indicates approval, even if they may want stronger measures later.


Strongly oppose teaching that contradicts biology

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose public schools promoting transgender education" and objects to bathrooms, locker rooms, and sports participation for transgender students. They argue the policy is "HARMFUL" and "risky," indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly support" and endorses transgender students using facilities in line with their gender. They also support gender-neutral bathrooms with stalls and removing stigma, which aligns with adopting the policy.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly support!!" and asks officials to "support it." They also state that the policy will help "support all students and make all feel welcome," indicating clear approval of adoption.


The commenter explicitly states "Very strongly opposed" and repeats "Opposed!". The phrase "This is absolutely wrong on so many levels!" clearly indicates rejection of the proposed policies.


The commenter says government officials "do not have a public mandate to enforce gender promotion" in schools, which rejects the regulation’s purpose. They also argue for a different balance around "body privacy and safety," implying opposition to the proposed transgender student policies as written.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose the Model Policies" and repeatedly argues the policies "do not help; they hinder and deceive." They reject accommodating transgender students and call the proposal "reprehensible," indicating clear opposition to adoption.


Support Model Policies. Protect Children From Being Harassed/Discriminated Against By Adults

The commenter explicitly says, "I think all of these comments demonstrate why there is such a strong need for these model policies" and repeatedly frames the guidance as necessary to "protect actual children from bullying and harassment." They also state it is "for the better to try to prevent harassment at schools and let children focus on learning," which clearly supports adoption.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, calling it "evil" and urging that "common sense and decency prevail," which indicates opposition to adoption. They also argue it threatens bathroom privacy and parental rights, saying it "does not give non transgender students the right to private bathroom facilities" and takes away parents' rights to talk to their children.


The commenter explicitly says, "Please do not support the proposed policy" and argues it "infringes on the rights of students". They oppose allowing transgender students to use male or female bathrooms and instead propose a separate "transgender bathroom."


The commenter explicitly states "Firmly oppose," which directly indicates rejection of the proposed regulation. No qualifying language suggests support or neutrality.


I strongly oppose this in school systems what so ever

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose this in the school system what so ever," which clearly rejects the proposed policies. There is no indication of support or neutrality.


I strongly oppose the transgender model policies

The commenter explicitly says, "I am strongly opposed to the transgender model policies" and repeatedly argues against them as "strictly political" and lacking "common sense." They also reject the idea that schools should have authority over parents, saying "you know best for the children and not their parents is absolute insanity."


The commenter says they are "appalled by these changes," which clearly signals rejection of the proposed policies. Their statement that children should be "guided into truth" rather than "allowed to make up these thoughts" indicates opposition to the regulation's approach to transgender students.


The commenter explicitly condemns the policy as "pure child abuse" and calls it "absolute abuse of power," indicating they want it rejected. They object to schools "promoting propaganda" and teaching children about sexuality, saying that is "a parents' responsibility, not the public school systems'."


The commenter explicitly says, "I am opposed to shared restrooms," which directly rejects a key part of the transgender student policies. They also object to the school system imposing a belief and emphasize parental control over their child's well-being, indicating opposition to the regulation as written.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose" and argues the policy should not be implemented, calling it "highly discouraged". They claim it is unsafe and would "put our children at risk," indicating rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose" and calls the policy "Completely inappropriate." The phrase "Perpetuating more confusion" indicates rejection of the regulation rather than support for adoption.


The commenter explicitly condemns the policy as "child abuse" and warns that it will "subject[] children to abuse," which indicates clear opposition to adoption. The statement "The doors this will open cannot be closed" and "Be prepared" further frame the regulation as harmful and unacceptable.


The commenter explicitly says the policy is "overstepping and NOT okay" and argues it is "highly intrusive." They also object to its effects on bathrooms, locker rooms, pronoun use, and girls' sports, indicating they want the regulation rejected or substantially weakened.


The commenter explicitly labels the submission "Oppose" and warns that parents will "remove their kids" and schools will have to "lay off all of your educators," indicating rejection of the proposed transgender student policies. The comment does not offer support or a neutral question; it is a clear warning against adoption.


The commenter says they are "extremely disappointed" the policies were written and objects to "pushing this in the school system," which clearly rejects adoption. The statement "I don't even feel safe... if this passes" reinforces opposition to the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "Strongly oppose VDOE proposed transgender policies" and ends with "Please reject this proposal!" They argue the policy "removes parents' rights" and should not be adopted.


Strongly Opposed to Proposed Transgender Guidelines

The commenter explicitly says, "I am strongly opposed to the new transgender legislation" and repeatedly states "I do not support this proposed legislation." They argue it violates parents' rights, student privacy, and fairness in sports, and ask for more data before approval.


The comment explicitly says "Oppose" and then reinforces rejection with "Sexual abuse. No no no," indicating the commenter wants the regulation rejected. Although the rationale is terse and not fully explained, the overall message is clearly ضد the proposed policies.


The comment explicitly says "Oppose" and urges, "Say no and protect our children," which indicates rejection of the proposed transgender student policies. The phrasing frames the regulation as a threat to children, supporting an oppositional stance.


The commenter explicitly states, "I do not support this bill," and the title says "Strongly Oppose!" This clearly indicates opposition to the proposed regulation.


The commenter explicitly gives a title of "Strong opposition" and uses condemnatory language such as "WRONG." They argue the policy will lead to harmful outcomes like "More teen pregnancies! More abuse" and object to "Exposing kids to sexuality at a young age," indicating they want the regulation rejected.


The commenter explicitly says they are "VERY STRONGLY OPPOSED TO THE TRANSGENDER POLICY" and states it "cannot be forced upon our children." They also reject the policy’s premise by saying "Transgenderism is NOT normal" and that we should not be "forced to accept it."


Concerns regarding proposed transgender policies in education

The commenter argues the proposed policies "do not seem to also equally consider the rights of others" and says "Parents should be the authority, not the state," indicating opposition to the regulation as written. They also object to being "forced to use" pronouns and frame the policy as infringing on free speech, conscience, and religious rights, while only conceding that bullying should not be excused.


The commenter explicitly titles the submission "Oppose transgender policy" and argues that implementing it would expose children to unwanted circumstances. They say not separating male and female could "open[] a door for sexual assault or rape" and insist schools "need to adhere to the separation in order to protect our children," which clearly rejects the regulation.


Strongly Support-Model Policies for Transgender Students in Schools

The commenter explicitly says, "I support these model policies" and frames them as necessary for "equality" and protection of "our trans youth." The comment also urges adoption by saying "It’s time to correct this," indicating clear approval of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly labels the submission "NO, Opposed" and argues that bathroom and shower access should be based on birth sex: "If you were born a boy, you go to the boys room." They also reject the policy’s approach by proposing an alternative of "single people bath rooms" and questioning the cost of renovations, indicating opposition to the regulation as written.


The commenter explicitly says, "I am strongly opposed to this legislation" and recommends against it, stating these laws "would be terrible for VA." They also argue for parental control and against bathroom access for transgender students, which indicates rejection of the proposed policies.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose this bill" and argues it is "inappropriate for children" and should not be integrated into public school curriculum. This is a clear rejection of the proposed transgender student policies.


The commenter explicitly says, "I am fervently opposed" and ends with "Please oppose these polices." They argue the policies are "political," "evil," and an "attempt to indoctrinate our children," indicating clear rejection rather than a request for modification.


The commenter says they "Strongly disapprove of the wording of this bill" and calls it "absolutely crazy," which clearly indicates rejection of the regulation. The statement that it is "confusing children even more" shows opposition to the policy’s substance, not a request for clarification.


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


The commenter says they "do agree in some aspects" but explicitly rejects key parts of the policy, especially counseling children about being transgender "without my knowledge nor consent" and says they would "definitely pull my children from public school should this Bill pass." The overall thrust is opposition to the regulation as written, even while suggesting alternatives like individual changing rooms and single-person restrooms.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy’s implications, stating "No male needs to be in a female bathroom or locker room" and "Strongly disagree." The comment argues against allowing transgender students access to sex-segregated facilities, indicating opposition to the regulation.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy: "do not support this what so ever" and argues against gender identity recognition by saying "It’s only two genders male and a female end of story!" This indicates opposition to the proposed transgender student policies.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose the proposed Transgender policy" and repeatedly argues against it, including "Please do not impose these policies" and "How dare you usurp that in a school setting." The comment objects to pronoun support and confidentiality provisions, especially "Keeping this information from their parents is criminal."


On this Guidance Document (Model Policies for the Treatment of Transgender Students in Virginia’s

The commenter explicitly states "Strongly oppose," which directly indicates rejection of the guidance document. No additional qualifying language suggests support or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly says, "I very strongly oppose," which directly states opposition to the regulation. The religious justification that "GOD Almighty made males and females" and "I stand on what GOD says" reinforces that they do not want the policy adopted.


I strongly oppose the Model Policies for the Treatment of Transgender Students in VA's PS

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose the Model Policies" and argues the policies are "irresponsible" and "reprehensible." They further state, "These proposed policies do not help; they hinder and deceive," which clearly indicates rejection of the regulation.


Opposed to proposed trans-related policies

The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose the proposed policies related to gender identity" and repeatedly argues against the policies as written. They object to schools not notifying parents and to allowing students to use facilities and participate in activities consistent with gender identity, stating that parents should be "always fully involved" and that decision-making should "reside with the parents."


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY OPPOSE" and repeats "OPPOSE THIS TRANSGENDER," which clearly indicates rejection of the proposed transgender student policies. No supporting or neutral language appears.


The commenter explicitly says, "Support!" and describes the policy as "desperately needed" for "the health and safety of transgender students." They also praise it as "thorough, flexible and respectful," indicating approval of adoption.


ABSOLUTELY DO NOT AGREE With this CRAP..

The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, saying "ABSOLUTELY DO NOT AGREE" and denouncing it as "CRAP." They argue against the underlying premise of transgender student protections by stating "There are 2 genders male and female thats it" and "GOD DOES NOT MAKE MISTAKES."


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

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


The commenter explicitly says, "I'm honored to support this guidance" and repeatedly endorses protections for transgender youth, including making sure they are "safe and welcomed at their school." The comment frames the policy as necessary to reduce bullying and support student well-being.


The commenter explicitly says, "I am opposed to the Model Policies" and states the document "should not" be approved. They argue it fails to protect religious or personal beliefs and claim approval would amount to "religious discrimination," indicating clear rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose the model policies for the treatment of transgender individuals" and the title reads "Strongly oppose the transgender policies." They repeatedly argue the policies are harmful and should be kept out of schools, saying to "leave your sexual re-engineering out of the schools" and "stick to the science."


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, calling it "trash" and saying schools have "absolutely NO business" being involved in children's sexuality. They also object to schools "push[ing] a minority narrative," which indicates opposition to the regulation's transgender-student guidance.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose the Model Policies" and argues schools should not "promote, celebrate, or force such confusion on our children." They also say the policies "do not help" and that schools should not "violate parents rights and harm children," indicating clear rejection of adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose the Model Policies for the Treatment of Transgender Students" and argues against allowing transgender students in "the locker room with the opposite genders." The final sentence, "This will make other students very uncomfortable," reinforces rejection of the policy.


The commenter explicitly labels the submission "Strong Support" and urges the policy makers to "love people that God loves," indicating approval of the transgender student policies. The body affirms that "Trans people deserve love and safety and validation of their identity," which clearly supports adoption of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "We support the guidance" and repeatedly argues that transgender people should be welcomed and treated equally. The comment frames the regulation as consistent with Christian values of hospitality, justice, and inclusion.


The commenter explicitly says, "I am stridently opposed to HB 145 and SB161," which directly rejects the regulation. They also argue it should be "left entirely up to parents" and call the bills "clearly unconstitutional," reinforcing opposition.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose new gender guidelines and policies," which clearly rejects the regulation. The additional statements that "Parents should be supported and not undermined" and "Parental rights matter" reinforce opposition based on parental rights concerns.


I am strongly opposed to new transgender and bathroom policies. Girls should not be afraid to use a

The commenter explicitly says they are "strongly opposed" to the proposed "transgender and bathroom laws" and calls the policy "morally wrong" and "not in the best interest of our children." They also argue it would make girls fearful in bathrooms and infringe on parental rights, all of which indicate rejection of the regulation.


Transgender policies/ gay and lesbian normalism being taught in schools

The commenter says, "I strongly oppose these issues being taught as normal in our schools," which directly rejects the proposed transgender student policies. They also argue it is "detrimental" for children, indicating clear opposition rather than a neutral question or factual remark.


The commenter explicitly labels the proposal "Strongly Oppose" and argues that the guidelines "take parents out of any role" and are "ridiculous." They object to bathroom access based on identity and to pronoun requirements, indicating they want the regulation rejected rather than adopted.


The comment is explicitly titled "Strongly Oppose" and quotes Romans 1 to condemn the policy's subject matter as sinful and contrary to God. It provides no support or suggested improvements, only a religious objection to transgender-related policies.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose" and argues against core elements of the policy, including bathroom access, pronoun use, and school handling of gender questioning. They also object to any punishment of parents who affirm a child's "biological sex," indicating rejection of the regulation's transgender-supportive provisions.


I oppose out of love for Virginia schoolchildren

The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose" and "I oppose this new orthodoxy wholeheartedly," indicating clear rejection of the regulation. They argue the policies would "cause... confusion, grief, and harm to our children" and describe them as "indoctrination," showing opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY SUPPORT" and "I fully support the proposed regulations for gender expansive students." They also endorse specific provisions like "educating faculty, staff, and students about gender identity" and "ensuring equitable opportunities for all students."


The commenter explicitly says "Emphatically OPPOSE" and states "This policy would allow for a host of physical, mental, and emotional abuses." They also argue it would "violate my parental rights," indicating clear rejection of the regulation.


REJECT THE PROPOSED HARMFUL TRANSGENGER POLICYThese standards inject the government into a sensitive

The commenter explicitly says "REJECT THE PROPOSED HARMFUL TRANSGENGER POLICY" and argues the policies "harmfully insert the government into a sensitive area properly reserved for parents." They also say, "Don't sundermine the parental role any further," which clearly opposes adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose this!" and objects to transgender-inclusive bathroom and locker room access, stating they do not want "a boy to be able to use the same bathroom or locker room as my daughter." They also argue that "The parents should have the final say," indicating rejection of the proposed policy as written.


The commenter explicitly labels the submission "Oppose" and dismisses the policy as "Not a core subject," indicating rejection of the regulation. The rhetorical question "Are you going to start teaching religion too?" suggests criticism of the policy's appropriateness in schools.


Violates Va Statutes and Va and US Constitutions -Part 3

The commenter explicitly argues the model policies are "unconstitutionally and unlawfully" created and says they "constitute a religious test for employment," indicating they want the regulation rejected. They repeatedly criticize the guidance as forcing employees to use "unnatural, made up pronouns" and conclude it is "not about equality, they are about conformity."


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose" and calls the policy "a terrible overreach." They also reject the subject matter, saying "teach my children how to read and write, not sexuality," which indicates opposition to adoption of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose this guidance document." They also argue it "opposes science and undermines the role of parents," indicating rejection of the regulation rather than support or neutrality.


These policies are only a model for psychological & emotional abuse of children

The commenter explicitly says policies that require people to violate their beliefs "must be vigorously opposed" and repeatedly argues the proposal is harmful, "scientifically wrong and medically dangerous," and an attack on "parental rights" and "freedom of conscience." The overall thrust is to reject the transgender student policies rather than amend them.


STRONGLY OPPOSE Proposed VDOE Transgender Policies

The commenter explicitly says "I STRONGLY OPPOSE the VDOE's proposed transgender policies" and urges, "Do not take away parents' ability to parent." They also argue "This should not be the schools' business," indicating rejection of the regulation rather than support or a neutral inquiry.


The commenter explicitly says "reject these policies" and frames the proposal as harmful, stating it will "endanger students-all students." They argue it would force students to share bathrooms with the opposite sex and hide information from parents, indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly and vehemently oppose this new policy" and repeats, "I STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS!!" They also urge, "Stop this new policy at once," which clearly indicates rejection rather than support or neutrality.


Support Equitable Education for Trans Students

The commenter explicitly says they are in "strong support of educational equity for trans and non-binary students" and "strongly support these proposed regulations." They also argue the rules are necessary to protect students and their educational opportunities, saying they "can be a matter of life and death."


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose the transgender policy," which directly states opposition to adoption. They also argue it "takes away parental rights" and will cause "disunity and disruption," reinforcing that they want the policy rejected.


The commenter clearly rejects the policy, calling it "horrible" and saying "This is overstepping." They object specifically to transgender-inclusive bathroom and locker room access, stating, "My daughter won’t be in the same bathroom or locker room with a boy!"


OPPOSITION to proposed model policies for transgender students

The commenter explicitly says, "We OPPOSE - in the STRONGEST POSSIBLE TERMS" the proposed policies. They also argue the policies are a "safety issue" and a "parental rights issue," and say students should be "PROTECTED" from them, indicating clear rejection of adoption.


Strongly Support. This is good for all children, regardless of their gender or sexuality.

The commenter explicitly says, "Strongly Support," which directly indicates approval of the regulation. They further state, "This is good for all children," reinforcing support for adoption.


The commenter explicitly says "Oppose in the strongest of terms" and argues against allowing transgender students access to girls' locker rooms and showers. They warn of "outrage," "lawsuits," and "sexual assault" if the policy is adopted, indicating clear opposition to the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "strongly oppose this" in reference to the proposed transgender student policies. The reason given — "parents need to be involved in their children's lives" — indicates opposition to the regulation as written, likely on parental rights grounds.


Opposed to Transgender Ideology - In Favor of Science and Safety for Boys and Girls

The comment explicitly says "Opposed to Transgender Ideology" and frames itself as against the proposed policies. The repeated phrase "In Favor of Science and Safety for Girls and Boys" indicates the commenter wants the regulation rejected or weakened rather than adopted.


The commenter says, "I am strongly opposed to the use of transgender language in the public schools," which directly rejects the regulation’s transgender-related guidance. No supporting or neutral language is present.


The commenter explicitly says "We have to oppose this" and argues the proposal is "absurd" and an "evil" being imposed on children. They also frame it as government overreach that would remove parents' ability to protect their children, indicating clear rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I fully support the model policies guidance document" and praises the policies as creating "a safe environment free from discrimination." The comment argues the guidance should be adopted because it promotes inclusion and affirmation for transgender and gender nonconforming youth.


The commenter says they are "vehemently opposed" to the transgender policies and explicitly asks to "vote against any such legislation." They frame the proposal as harmful to children and incompatible with religious beliefs, indicating clear rejection of adoption.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly support" and frames the policy as "basic human rights" that are "needed to protect an often vulnerable population." This clearly endorses adoption of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly urges officials to "leave it alone" and says the government should not "program or re-program our children," indicating opposition to the proposed transgender student policies. The comment frames the regulation as harmful and claims it would "sexualize" children, which is a clear rejection of adoption.


Proposed Virginia department of education transgender policy

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose this policy," which directly states rejection of the regulation. They also object that it "infringes on students rights and also infringes on parental rights," reinforcing opposition to adoption.


OPPOSE VDOE Proposed Transgender Policies

The commenter explicitly says they "strongly oppose the proposed VDOE policies for transgender students". They frame the policies as "special treatment or favor" for one group "to the detriment of other students," indicating rejection of the regulation rather than support for it.


Oppose this policy and protect our children

The commenter explicitly says, "Strongly oppose this policy," which directly rejects adoption of the regulation. The follow-up phrase, "Protect our innocent children," reinforces opposition rather than offering support or neutral feedback.


Irreversably damaging policy for our children and country

The commenter explicitly says the policy is "absolutely damaging" and that it "must be stopped," which clearly indicates opposition to adoption. They also argue that schools have "no right" to interfere with parents raising children and describe transition as causing "terrible, terrible damaging consequences."


The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose the state taking on the role of parent" and calls the policy "egregious," indicating clear rejection of the regulation. The remark "Do what we say or we will take your kids!" further shows opposition to the state guidance and its perceived enforcement.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, saying it does not "justify the adoption of transexual social philosophy as biological orthodoxy" and arguing that "Legislating that we teach children otherwise" will cause problems. The comment frames the guidance as contrary to biological reality and harmful to those who disagree with it.


Unacceptable and Oppose Transgender "Police"

The commenter explicitly says "This is unacceptable" and frames the policy as government overreach, asking "Where does this intrusion stop?" They also title the comment "Oppose Transgender 'Police'," indicating rejection of the regulation rather than support or neutrality.


VA Department of Education (VDOE) in support of protections for transgender and non-binary students

The commenter explicitly says, "Please, strongly support," which clearly endorses adoption of the policy. They also add that "This is good for all children," reinforcing approval of the protections for transgender and non-binary students.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose the school system in any way addressing this issue of transgender," which clearly rejects the regulation’s subject matter. The statement is broad and unqualified, indicating opposition to the policy itself rather than a request for changes.


The commenter explicitly titles the comment "Support" and says "Our trans students deserve the same respect and safe school environment" and that "it's time we step up as a society to support them." This clearly endorses adopting the regulation and its protections for transgender students.


The commenter explicitly says, "I am strongly opposed to this policy" and argues it "goes way beyond prevention of bullying" and "crosses the line to forced promotion of a politicized gender ideology." Although they affirm that students should be protected from harm and harassment, the overall position is clearly against adoption of the regulation.


Strongly oppose  VDOE Policy for Treatment of Transgender Students

The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose" and argues the policies are "an attack on the role of parents". They object to bathroom/locker room access, privacy from parents, and say the policies would conflict with "faith, conscience, and biology," all indicating rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose" and calls the policies "confusing and harmful to children." They also argue the issue is "not the business of schools" and urge parents to "remove your children from public schools," indicating rejection of the regulation.


Confuse and Hurt everyone -  Irreversably damaging policy for our children and country

The commenter explicitly rejects the policy as "confuse and hurt everyone" and calls it an "irreversably damaging policy." They argue that "pushing the agenda" is harmful and say children should not be supported in gender identity, indicating opposition to adoption of the regulation.


Follow the science for Heaven's sake (and the sake of our children)

The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, saying "Quit messing with the well-being of our children" and "quit trying to change established science!" They argue against accommodating transgender students and frame the regulation as harmful to "normal boys and girls."


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose this transgender policy" and argues against changing restroom and locker room access. They frame the policy as increasing risk, saying it would "elevate the sexual assault risk factor," which indicates rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY OPPOSE!!!!!" and argues that officials should not "enforce gender promotion" in schools. The reference to jeopardizing "bodily privacy and safety" shows clear rejection of the proposed policies.


The commenter explicitly states "STRONGLY OPPOSE" and repeats "STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS VERY HARMFUL POLICY," which clearly indicates rejection of the regulation. The phrase "very harmful" shows the objection is substantive rather than procedural.


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


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support the proposal" and asks to "continue to support ALL our students." They also endorse the goal of ensuring transgender students have "a safe and respectful school environment," which clearly supports adoption of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "We support the transgender student guidance" and the title reads "Strongly Support." They also give reasons favoring adoption, saying it is needed to promote "safety, education, acceptance, and equality for all children."


The commenter explicitly titles the submission "strongly oppose Statewide Transgender Policy draft" and says "I object to some of the recommended standards." They criticize parental notification, abuse reporting, dress code, restroom access, and school athletics, indicating opposition to the regulation as written.


The commenter explicitly says, "I STRONGLY OPPOSE the model" and repeats "STRONG OPPOSITION" throughout the comment. They argue it is outside the scope of public education and would "subject the remaining segments of society to such discrimination," indicating rejection of the regulation rather than support with changes.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose these policy’s" and objects to multiple core elements, including "parents not being able to tell their children what is right or wrong" and the idea that "there should be separate bathrooms." These statements indicate rejection of the proposed transgender student policies rather than support or neutrality.


I support the draft guidance provided by the VDOE. Thank you!

The commenter explicitly says, "I support the draft guidance" and repeats, "I support this draft guidance." They also endorse being "inclusive to all people and protecting the rights of all," indicating clear approval of adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I fully support LGBTQ+ kids" and frames the regulation as aligned with treating others with respect and love. The title also says "Support," reinforcing a clear pro-adoption position.


The commenter explicitly says, "we MUST support kids in their gender identity" and the title reads "ALL MUST STRONGLY SUPPORT!!" They also endorse pronoun use, bathroom access, and trans rights, which aligns with adopting the regulation as written or strengthened.


The commenter explicitly says, "Strongly Oppose!" and states this is "not a policy that should be forced on my children." They object to "another gender entering a bathroom, shower or locker room," indicating rejection of the proposed transgender student policies.


The commenter explicitly states "100% Support" and says "I fully support this guidance." They also endorse the policy’s goals, saying all students deserve "dignity and respect" and to feel "safe and fully included."


I am absolutely opposed to the Model Policies for the Treatment of Transgender Stude

The commenter explicitly says, "I am absolutely opposed to the Model Policies" and calls the proposal "appalled" and asks, "What are you thinking?" They argue it "opens the door for bullying and discrimination," indicating rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly states "Full support" and adds the purpose "to help our transgender students," which clearly endorses adoption of the policy. There is no opposing language or ambiguity.


The comment explicitly states, "I emphatically oppose," which directly indicates rejection of the proposed regulation. No supporting or neutral language is present.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, opening with "Never, it's against the law" and repeatedly urging officials to "leave the radical abnormal aspects out of the classroom" and "do not take any tax money." The comment argues the regulation is harmful and should not be adopted, framing it as a "social experiment" on children.


We MUST protect vulnerable youth and SUPPORT

The commenter explicitly says "SUPPORT" and repeatedly urges officials to "enact policies" and "do the right thing" to protect transgender and LGBT youth. The body endorses the regulation’s goals of preventing discrimination, bullying, and harassment and calls it "a moral imperative."


I Do Not Support This. It Is Child Abuse.

The commenter explicitly says, "I Do Not Support This" and argues the proposal is "child abuse" and "evil," which clearly indicates opposition to adoption of the regulation. They also object to being "forced into any type of speech or behavior" that conflicts with their beliefs, showing they want the policy rejected.


The commenter explicitly titles the submission "Fully Support" and repeatedly endorses the policy, calling for "commonsense structures to ensure their safety and inclusion." They also criticize opposing approaches as "draconian, backwards policies" that "invite bullying and exclusion," indicating clear support for adoption of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose this proposition," and argues the policies are unworkable because gender identity is "completely subjective" and could be exploited. They also object that the policies provide "no exceptions or accommodations" for religious or conscience-based objections, indicating rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I am in full support of this policy" and frames it as necessary to "protect this vulnerable group of people" and promote "equality in our Commonwealth." This is a clear endorsement of adoption.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose" and argues against the policies by saying "Please allow the parents to parent." They also warn of negative consequences if the policies are adopted: "You will see a mass exit from public schools if these policies are passed."


The commenter explicitly says "Fully support!" and repeatedly urges approval: "Please give children this safe space and respect and honor for their identities." The comment endorses the policy’s purpose of supporting transgender students and protecting them from harm.


STRONGLY OPPOSE-NOT THE ROLE OF PUBLIC EDUCATION

The commenter explicitly says, "I STRONGLY OPPOSE the model" and repeats "STRONG OPPOSITION" throughout the comment. They argue it is "outside the scope and purpose of public education" and claim it would "limit the rights of others," indicating rejection of the proposed policy.


The commenter explicitly says, "I 100% support all efforts" and endorses ensuring "ALL students in Virginia have equal access to a safe and supportive learning environment." This is a clear endorsement of the proposed policies.


The commenter explicitly says "Support!" and argues that "it is our duty to protect them" and give transgender students "the same rights as all children in our schools," which clearly endorses the regulation. The comment expresses approval of the policy’s protective intent rather than criticism or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly says, "I am strongly opposed to these suggested policies" and argues schools should not have influence "without parental knowledge and consent." They also reject transgender students' access to "locker rooms, overnight accommodations on school trips, or bathrooms," indicating opposition to the regulation's core provisions.


The commenter explicitly asks to "support this measure" and frames the policy as necessary to protect transgender students from "bullying, violence, and mental health stresses." The comment cites the American Academy of Pediatrics and argues the regulation would improve safety and access to appropriate facilities.


Please support this, for the mental health of our youth.

The commenter explicitly asks policymakers to "support and protect trans youth" and says, "Please enact this legislation." They frame the regulation as necessary to make the community "more equitable and safe," which clearly endorses adoption.


Strongly opposed to Commonwealth of Virginia Dept of Education proposed Transgender Policy

The commenter explicitly says, "I am strongly opposed to the proposed transgendered policies in education." They also state the opposition is "based on my Catholic faith," indicating a clear rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly titles the submission "Support" and states they "embrace and support the transgender community." They further endorse respectful treatment and inclusion by saying transgender people "deserve support and love" and "to be treated with respect."


The commenter explicitly says they are in "strong support" of "protecting our transgendered children & teens at school" and endorses the policy's protective purpose. The statement "We need to protect their children" indicates approval of the regulation rather than opposition or neutrality.


Support the Mental Health of our Trans Youth

The commenter explicitly urges policymakers to "support their safety and mental health in the public school system" and says, "Please stand up for Virginia’s youth by supporting" the policy. They also recommend using WPATH Standards of Care as a guide, indicating approval of the regulation with possible strengthening.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support this guidance," indicating clear approval of the regulation. They further justify support by stating the policies "help to create a safe and welcoming space for transgender youth" and promote "equity, equality, and respect for all students."


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose this," which directly rejects the proposed regulation. They also argue it would be "harmful to more children then it would be helpful" and urge, "Let parents parent," indicating opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I am writing in strong support of this proposal" and frames it as "protecting our transgender children & teens at school." The rest of the comment reinforces approval of the regulation’s purpose, calling for respect and protection for trans students.


The commenter explicitly says, "Do not support Virginia School Transgender Policies" and argues that allowing "Boys/men allowed in girls bathroom" will create "fear" and "unnecessary and bizarre sexual problems." The questions about teachers' lounges, dressing rooms, and bathrooms are rhetorical and clearly express opposition to the policy.


The commenter says they are "not in favor" of the policy, which clearly indicates opposition. The title "oppose girls going topless" suggests concern about sex-specific school rules and perceived indecency related to transgender policy implementation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I fully support the implementation of this policy" and "fully and whole-heartedly support these policies." They also argue it is "critical to protecting our trans youth" and creating "a safe and inclusive educational environment," indicating clear approval of adoption.


let's support the family -- I oppose the transgender policies

The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose the transgender policies," which directly rejects the proposed regulation. The statement that it is "the parents' job" rather than "the law and an overworked, untrained teacher" further indicates opposition to school-based implementation.


on a dare enter, boys enter girls' bathroom

The comment appears to object to the policy by invoking a feared consequence: "boys enter girls' bathroom," followed by "so sad and scary." This indicates concern that the regulation would allow or encourage bathroom access the commenter opposes.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support this" and repeatedly argues for adopting the policies to create a "safe, inclusive and welcoming environment for all children." They also state, "I want this for our school systems," which clearly endorses the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "Strongly support this Transgender policy" and states that "This policy must be supported" to protect transgender youth. The comment clearly endorses adoption of the regulation and frames it as compassionate and protective.


Strongly support equality and inclusion for all students!

The commenter explicitly says, "I am in strong support of these measures" and "stand with and for children of all genders," which clearly endorses adoption of the policy. The final sentence, "Everyone, but especially children, deserve to be supported," reinforces approval of the regulation's inclusionary goals.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support these policies" and adds that "Anything and everything needs to be done to protect trans children," which clearly endorses adoption of the regulation. There is no opposing language or qualification.


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


all this sounds like a science fiction movie -- I oppose

The commenter explicitly says "I oppose" and criticizes the policy as something the state should not do without family input. The statement that "Hiding the child's transgender issue" is harmful indicates rejection of the transgender student guidance rather than support for it.


Concern for teachers who must go against conscience --- oppose

The commenter explicitly says the policy will force teachers and administrators to "go against conscience" and implies they should not be subject to it. The closing remarks criticize the regulation as worsening the problem and causing "hidden communication with parents," indicating opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "Support inclusion and equity," which clearly endorses the regulation’s purpose and adoption. There is no language indicating any objection or qualification.


The commenter explicitly says "Oppose this school policy" and argues against the regulation by claiming girls are being discriminated against and expressing concern about boys entering locker rooms. The overall message is that the policy should not be adopted in its current form.


The comment is too vague and appears off-topic: "Can we rent port a potties for the front lawn of school" followed by "Yes, rent port a potties." It does not clearly express support for or opposition to the proposed transgender student policies.


The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose it in its entirety!!" and the title reads "Oppose in the strongest terms," leaving no ambiguity about their position. The body also criticizes the policies as undermining family and being "a complete abandonment of science and biology," indicating rejection rather than support or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly says "Support and protect Transgender students" and frames the issue as a rights-based endorsement: "Human rights are for EVERYONE." This clearly supports adoption of the proposed policies.


The commenter says "Supporting all children is important" and does not reject the policy outright, but urges caution and more preparation before implementation. The main concern is procedural: schools may "rush forward" without adequate research, planning, training, parent education, or implementation time, rather than a clear position for or against adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support the VDOE guidelines" and praises them as "equitable, humane, and respectful." They also argue it is "well past time" for acceptance of gender identity and expression, indicating clear approval of the regulation.


In the name of my son, I fully support the proposed regulations for gender expansive students

The commenter explicitly says, "I fully support the proposed regulations" and repeatedly urges that Virginia "enact[] the proposed regulations" to protect "gender expansive students." The body argues the rules are needed for safety, privacy, and equitable educational opportunities.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy as "wrong" and says, "Do not taint the classroom with unnatural ideology," which indicates opposition to the transgender student guidance. They also argue to "Protect children by not interfering with the parents right to raise them," framing the regulation as an improper intrusion.


The commenter explicitly states, "I strongly support this measure," which directly indicates approval of the regulation. There is no qualifying language or criticism suggesting otherwise.


Support the document, with one exception

The commenter says, "Almost all of the provisions all seem sensible and well thought out," which clearly endorses the regulation overall. They raise one objection to "compelling the school staff to use the requested pronoun" and prefer it be encouraged instead, indicating support with a specific modification rather than rejection.


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


The commenter explicitly says, "I support protecting all children," which clearly endorses the regulation's purpose. The phrase "stress free an environment" indicates approval of the policy's protective intent rather than opposition or neutrality.


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


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Oppose" and states "this is not the answer," arguing the policy should not be adopted. They also urge the school to avoid the guidance because it would allow access to "locker rooms, bathrooms, and sports" and would "infringe" on parental rights and women's rights.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support" and "I extremely support trans lives matter." They argue transgender students should use the bathroom of their gender and that the policy would help prevent bullying and harm, indicating clear support for the regulation.


transgender regulations being considered in public school

The commenter says they are "strongly opposed" to policies requiring teachers to use gender-related language and explicitly asks, "PLEASE do not facilitate" the regulation. They also criticize the policies as an "extreme political agenda," indicating rejection of the proposed guidance.