The commenter explicitly says, "Strongly support this guidance!" which directly endorses adoption of the regulation. There is no qualifying language suggesting opposition or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support the proposed legislation" and frames the policy as necessary to "support our transgender peers and students" and "protect" them from discrimination. The comment clearly endorses adoption of the regulation as written or in principle.


The commenter explicitly says, "I absolutely support the Model Policies on the Treatment of Transgender Students" and states, "This proposed rule will make Virginia a better place to learn." They also praise the policies for creating "safe and welcoming schools for all," indicating clear approval of adoption.


The comment explicitly says, "Please support transgender students," which clearly endorses the regulation’s purpose of protecting transgender students. It offers no objections or qualifications.


The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose legislation" and argues the policy "does not respect the critical role parents have". The comment frames the regulation as an interference with the parent-child relationship in a sensitive area, indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly object" and labels the proposal "extreme and unacceptable," indicating clear opposition to adoption. They argue it would interfere with "parental rights," create "privacy issues" in bathrooms/locker rooms, and conflict with religious conscience, all of which are reasons for rejecting the policy.


The commenter explicitly says "Do NOT support" and argues that "Transgender should NOT be discussed in our school systems." They also reject shared bathrooms/locker rooms and compare the policy unfavorably to Bible instruction, indicating opposition to the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "Strongly support" and "I support this document," which directly endorses adoption of the regulation. There is no qualifying language or criticism suggesting opposition or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly says, "I fully support this Bill," and the title "Support all students" reinforces approval of the regulation. They also identify as a parent of a non-binary student, indicating personal support for the policy's protections.


Strongly oppose to birth gender boys in girls locker rooms

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose" allowing "birth gender boys" in "girls locker rooms" and "girls sports." This is a clear rejection of the proposed transgender student policies, especially regarding facility access and athletics.


The commenter explicitly says they want to "protect transgender students" and support policies that let them attend school "without shaming" and "without worry about using bathrooms." This is a clear endorsement of the proposed transgender student policies.


The commenter explicitly labels the submission "OPPOSE" and says "I do not agree with this at all." They argue the policy is harmful, object to shared bathrooms/locker rooms, and say they will be "pulling all my children from public schools," indicating clear rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support this" and repeats, "I STRONGLY support this." They also endorse the policy’s goals of "equal protections" and "equal, non-discriminatory access to public schooling," indicating approval of adoption.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY SUPPORT" and "I fully support legislation to promote the health and well being of trans kids." They also add that supporting trans kids and their families is "extremely important" to them, indicating clear approval of the regulation.


STRONGLY SUPPORT-TRANS RIGHTS ARE HUMAN RIGHTS

The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY SUPPORT" and repeats "TRANS RIGHTS ARE HUMAN RIGHTS," which clearly endorses the regulation. The request to "Protect TRANSYOUTH" aligns with supporting the proposed policies for transgender students.


Strongly Oppose bc Policy is extremely flawed

The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Oppose" and repeatedly argues the policies are "extremely flawed" and should not be adopted. They object to parental notification limits, bathroom/locker room access, confidentiality provisions, and the administrative burden, framing the proposal as harmful and unnecessary.


Strongly Support -- Inclusion promotes safety

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support this proposal" and repeatedly endorses its goals of "inclusivity and safety" for transgender and non-binary students. They also argue against forcing students into "sex-based dress codes, activities, pronouns, etc.," which aligns with adopting the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly support" and adds a general endorsement of equal treatment: "Everyone should be treated fairly and with dignity." This clearly supports adopting the regulation.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policies, calling them an infringement on "parents parental rights" and saying "this is not for us to decide." They also urge the writers to feel "SHAME ON YOU," indicating clear opposition to adoption of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY OPPOSE!" and argues against the policy by urging that transgender students be limited to "a single stall bathroom." The rationale centers on fear of harm to girls, stating "Don’t submit our girls to the potential of sexual harassment or abuse," which indicates rejection of the regulation as written.


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


The commenter explicitly says, "I support the model" and repeats support for "these principles and policies." They also endorse the rationale that children should learn "free from discrimination and harassment" and describe the model as based on "science, facts, best practices."


The commenter explicitly says, "This is not a good solution" and argues the policy would not "provide the protection we wish for them" and also "does not protect the other students." This is a clear rejection of the proposed regulation as written.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY OPPOSE" and urges the schools to "STAY OUT of the gender games," indicating rejection of the proposed transgender student policies. They also object to bathroom access for transgender students and demand parental notification, which aligns with weakening or rejecting the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support equal treatment/access for transgender students," which clearly endorses the regulation's purpose. The title, "Strongly support transgender students," reinforces that they want the policy adopted.


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

The commenter explicitly says "VEHEMENTLY OPPOSE!" and argues that government 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 says "Support!" and repeats "Support!!", which directly indicates approval of the proposed regulation. There is no qualifying language suggesting opposition or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY SUPPORT" and argues that "proper policies like this" are important. They also endorse trans rights directly, stating "trans rights are human rights" and that transgender people "deserve to be understood and taken care of."


The commenter explicitly says, "VA public schools should make these changes" and ends with "change should be made," which clearly supports adoption of the regulation. They also argue it would help trans students feel "more comfortable" and oppose objections based on religion or age.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support the model guidance" and gives a reason favoring adoption: "I want school environments that are safe and welcoming for everyone." This is a clear endorsement of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I am writing in support of the Model Policies on the Treatment of Transgender Students" and repeatedly argues that "more empathetic rules like this" would help students. They describe the policies as promoting a "safe, understanding school environment" and express a wish that this experience "for everyone."


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly support" and gives a reason aligned with the policy goals: "All students have the right to safety in schools." This indicates clear approval of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy’s premise, saying "Self-identification cannot be the measure" and warning against "broad-sweeping policy" that gives legitimacy to transgender identities. They also argue against shared bathrooms and athletic participation, indicating they do not want the regulation adopted.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Oppose," which clearly indicates rejection of the regulation. The brief body, "Mom that strongly opposes," reinforces the same position without adding any qualifying support.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly support" and then repeats the title of the proposed policy, indicating approval of adoption. There is no language suggesting opposition, concern, or a request for weakening the regulation.


The comment explicitly states, "I strongly oppose," which directly indicates rejection of the proposed regulation. No additional context suggests any nuance or support for modifications.


The commenter explicitly says, "I fully support legislation needed to promote the health and well-being of trans youth," which clearly endorses the regulation. There is no language indicating any objection or qualification.


The commenter explicitly says "strongly oppose" and states that the guidelines are "not ensuring that EVERY child is comfortable". They also say they would withdraw their children if the guidelines pass, indicating clear rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly labels the submission "Opposed" and says they "can not in good conscience agree this policy offering is the answer." They ask to "go back to the drawing board" and argue there are "other ways" to address the issue, indicating rejection of the regulation as written.


The commenter explicitly says, "I wholeheartedly support any legislation" and frames the policy as making schools "safer and more supportive of transgender youth." This is a clear endorsement of adopting the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly opposed 2 this" and argues against accommodating transgender students, stating "there are 2 genders ...male and female" and that such policies would "open the door for misuse and huge problems." They also say transgender people should "conform to the situation not the other way around," indicating rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support anything that will provide trans students with an equitable and safe learning environment." They also add, "All students deserve that," which clearly endorses adoption of the policy.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY OPPOSE" and objects to the policy as "indoctrination" and "special treatment" for "protected groups." This indicates clear rejection of the proposed transgender student policies.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY OPPOSE" and asks to "Protect our girls!" while rejecting the policy's recognition of transgender students. The statement that "a boy is always a boy and a girl is always a girl" indicates opposition to the regulation as written.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support this policy" and argues it is "a step in the right direction for creating a more inclusive environment for ALL students." They also defend the policy against religious objections and emphasize protection from discrimination and support for trans students.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do not want this policy passed or implemented in Virginia or any state," which is a direct rejection of the regulation. They also object to transgender inclusion in "bathrooms, locker rooms and sports" and argue for parental rights against the policy.


The commenter explicitly labels the submission "Strong Support" and says "Support basic dignity and humanity." The rest of the comment defends the freedom to identify across genders and endorses institutions that "empower their individuals to understand and express themselves fully," which clearly supports adoption of the policy.


Why do we promote Science as fact with medicine, climate change etc, but deny biology DNA & gender?

The commenter rejects the regulation’s premise, asking why officials “deny scientific biology of DNA & gender” and concluding “Stop the madness.” This clearly signals opposition to the transgender student policies rather than support or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly says "Absolutely Opposed" and asks to "Please reconsider these guidelines!" They argue the policies are harmful and restrictive, claiming they jeopardize "Parents rights" and should not be imposed on children or educators.


Strongly oppose -- tramples parents' rights, violates privacy, denies rights of conscience

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose the current VDOE proposals" and later, "I do not approve of these guidelines." The body repeatedly argues the policies should not be adopted because they "trample parental rights," threaten privacy/safety, and violate conscience and religious freedom.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support the protection of any student’s rights" and urges the community to "support and hear the voices of our transgender and non-binary students." This is a clear endorsement of the proposed policies, even if the commenter frames it as a rights-based appeal rather than a detailed policy discussion.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, calling it "child abuse" and saying "Stop abusing children." They argue against affirming transgender identities and urge helping children "accept the gender that their DNA says they are," which indicates opposition to the regulation's purpose.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support this model" and endorses treating students "with dignity and respect." They also argue the education system should be "welcoming and nurturing for all students," which clearly favors adoption of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I am strongly disagreeing with these actions" and argues against allowing transgender students to use shared bathrooms/locker rooms. They also urge the policy not be passed, claiming it would harm children and increase sexual activity and assault.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY SUPPORT" and adds that it is "imperative that we support transgender students' health and well-being." They also state, "I fully support any and all endeavours that do so," which clearly endorses adoption of the policy.


In response to Model Policies/Transgender Students/Public Elementary & Secondary Schools

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose the Virginia Department of Education's draft" and calls it "not acceptable in any way at all." They also object to bathroom access provisions, describing them as a "HUGE PROBLEM" and urging others to reject the policy direction.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support to the fullest extent possible," which is a clear endorsement of the regulation. The rest of the comment criticizes opposing views as "hateful" and "bigotry," reinforcing support rather than questioning the policy.


The commenter explicitly labels the submission "Oppose" and says they are "not supportive of giving students access to the bathroom of their choice." They also ask to "Please put resources where they are most needed," indicating rejection of the statewide policy as written.


The commenter says, "I strongly oppose this policy for our schools," making their position explicit. They also object on religious and developmental grounds, especially "at the elementary and middle school levels," indicating they want the policy rejected rather than adopted.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY OPPOSE!!" and repeatedly argues that "the proposed legislation" should not be implemented. They describe it as "corrupt," harmful to children, and say it "would not be safe" for bathrooms, locker rooms, or sports.


Public school teacher/mom of private school students  OPPOSE

The commenter explicitly labels the policy "OPPOSE" and says it is "damaging to children’s delicate psyche." They also ask to "Please keep our daughters and sons safe," indicating they want the regulation rejected rather than adopted.


The commenter says, "I completely and wholeheartedly support this legislation" and explicitly frames it as promoting "the health, safety, and well-being of transgender students." This is a clear endorsement of adoption.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Support" and states that the policy will "allow our schools to become a safe environment" for students. This is clear approval of adopting the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "STONGLY OPPOSE!!" and urges officials to "keep gender out of it," indicating rejection of the regulation. They also object to pronoun guidance, calling it "wrong" and saying "Stop trying to force the world to change for some."


The commenter explicitly says they "strongly oppose the transgender mandates as currently drafted" and closes by asking to "dismiss the mandate as drafted." They argue it would harm young women, restrict teachers, and undermine parental authority, indicating opposition to adoption in its current form.


The commenter explicitly says, "I am in full support of this!" which directly endorses the regulation. The phrase "It’s about time!!" reinforces approval and eagerness for adoption.


The commenter explicitly asks Virginia to "stick to fact based policies for kids and young adults" and to consider "evidence based policies for our kids," which indicates support for adopting the regulation. Although they criticize certain gender-affirming treatments and link to outside sources, the overall thrust is endorsement of policies they view as evidence-based.


The commenter explicitly asks officials to "reject the Model Policies" and repeats that request multiple times, calling the document "harmful to children" and saying it "oversteps the rights of parents." The comment argues against the policy's approach to transgender students and frames it as based on "emotion and opinion instead of scientific fact."


STRONGLY SUPPORT EVIDENCE-BASED POLICIES

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support this model" and endorses treating transgender and binary students "with dignity and respect." They also argue that policies should be based on "current evidence and facts," indicating approval of the regulation as written or in principle.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Oppose" and urges, "Stay off of our children." They also reject the policy on religious and moral grounds, saying it would "confuse their minds" about the gender "God gave them."


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support the proposed guidelines" and further endorses "any policies that support and protect all students." This clearly indicates approval of the regulation as a means to create a "safe and accepting environment."


The commenter explicitly says, "I vehemently oppose this" and "DO NOT support the proposed changes," which clearly indicates rejection of the regulation. They also argue it "disregards parental rights, students' privacy rights and the First Amendment rights," reinforcing opposition on substantive grounds.


STRONGLY OPPOSE!  Parents have rights. Trans students need mental healthcare intervention

The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY OPPOSE!" and argues that the Department of Education has "no right to interfere" with the issue. The statement that this is a "family and psychiatric matter alone" indicates rejection of the proposed transgender student policies.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Support" and asks to "move forward with efforts to support trans students in Virginia schools." They also argue that denying inclusive treatment leads to "negative outcomes," which clearly endorses adoption of the regulation.


I strongly oppose! God created us male or female and has a plan and a purpose for each of us.

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose!" and argues against the policy by insisting that children "are already male or female" and warning that if changed there are "a lot of mental and physical issues." This indicates rejection of the proposed transgender student policies.


The commenter explicitly says the guidelines "must therefore not be adopted by school boards" and titles the comment "Strongly OPPOSE Transgender Guidelines." Although they acknowledge the state can ensure students are treated respectfully, the core position is that these policies fail to respect parental authority and should be rejected.


The commenter explicitly says, "Fully Support!" and adds, "I whole heartedly support legislation to promote the health and wellbeing of trans youth!" This is a clear endorsement of adopting the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support this" and "Very proud to support this." They also endorse the policy goals of acceptance, safety, and support for transgender students, saying it is "vital that ALL students feel supported and loved."


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

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


Outrageous/ Absurd/ Sickening... NOT OK, NOT NOW, NOT EVER!!!!!

The commenter states "overwhelming opposition" and repeatedly rejects the policy with phrases like "NOT OK, NOT NOW, NOT EVER" and "NO ONE has the right to impose immoral values upon my child." They argue the regulation is harmful and inappropriate, especially regarding bathroom access and parental notification.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Opposed" and uses dismissive language toward transgender students, indicating rejection of the proposed policies. The phrase "not ‘justice’ for the confused" shows opposition to the regulation's purpose and framing.


The commenter explicitly says, "I Support This!" and repeatedly endorses the policy, stating that transgender and non-binary students "deserve our support" and "equal treatment, encouragement, support, and respect in all areas." The comment argues schools should be a "life line" for these students, which clearly favors adoption of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, calling it "Terrible stuff" and saying "keep all this stuff out of our schools." They argue it will create "confusion and fear" and object to students changing pronouns and others being required to comply.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY OPPOSE" and argues the Virginia Department of Education is "going too far here." They reject the policy's treatment of pronoun use and transgender identity, calling it inconsistent with reality and citing statistics to argue against the guidance.


The comment explicitly says "STRONGLY OPPOSE" and the title labels the policies "OPPOSE," which clearly indicates rejection of the regulation. No supporting or neutral language is present.


Condemn Va. Department of Education Transgender Policies

The commenter explicitly calls the policies "totally unacceptable" and says schools should not "encourage them in their sexuality," indicating rejection of the regulation. They also oppose gender-inclusive treatment in facilities by stating "Bathrooms are by gender" and argue this is the parents' role, not the schools'.


The commenter explicitly says "strongly support!!", which clearly indicates approval of the proposed regulation. There is no additional qualifying language or criticism.


The commenter explicitly endorses transgender equality, stating that "Trans people deserve the same rights and access as everyone else" and criticizing opposition as harmful. This clearly supports adopting the proposed policies.


The commenter says, "I strongly disagree with this policy" and explicitly argues that "this new policy will not be passed," indicating clear opposition to adoption. They frame the policy as endangering students: "It puts students, male or female, at risk."


The commenter explicitly says, "I do not approve of the proposed transgender policies," which directly rejects adoption of the regulation. The rest of the comment reinforces opposition by criticizing the policies as "radical theories" that "eradicate all distinctions between male and female" and "indoctrinate our school children."


The commenter clearly rejects the policy, calling it "Destructive progressivisom" and saying it will cause "unknown havoc on a child's development." They also object to "the lack of accountability and vagueness of writing" and to parents not being involved or notified, indicating opposition to adoption of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY OPPOSE" and states "My family is completely against this." They object to the policy on grounds of bathroom access and pronoun/name use, saying schools would "force them to share bathrooms with the opposite sex" and "call kids by whatever nonsense they make up that day."


Proposed Transgender Policy FX School Board

The commenter explicitly writes "OPPOSED" and says the policy "does not respect nor protect the rights ALL of the children....nor their parents." They also argue it "distracts from the core objective" of education, indicating rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "Strongly Support" and "I strongly support this!" indicating clear approval of the regulation. The phrase "This is long overdue" further reinforces that they want it adopted.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Oppose!" and asks to "respect traditional family values," which indicates rejection of the proposed transgender student policies. No supporting or neutral language is present.


The commenter explicitly says they are "strongly opposed" to the policies and calls them "wrong on so many different levels." They object to bathroom access, parental authority, and transgender recognition, indicating they want the regulation rejected.


The comment is explicitly titled "Strongly opposed," which directly signals rejection of the regulation. The body reinforces opposition by criticizing representatives for "push[ing] their own agenda" and stating that "the majority responses are strongly opposed."


The commenter explicitly says they "passionately support" the policy and argues that transgender, gender nonconforming, and non binary students "deserve the same rights and protections" as cisgender students. They also state that "public school is for everybody" and that everyone deserves "equal protection under the law," which clearly endorses adoption of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly calls it "obviously perverse for biological boys to compete with girls" and says "bad policies have ramifications," indicating opposition to the transgender student policies. Although they also express concern that "I just don't want anyone to get hurt," the overall message argues against allowing trans girls in girls' sports.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, saying they are "appalled and so disappointed" and condemning the proposal as putting "special interest groups" over "science and reality." The statement that officials have "lost your minds" for considering it indicates clear opposition to adoption.


It the correct approach to address this issue

The commenter says they "agree they need support in the school system" but explicitly rejects key parts of the policy: "I cannot accept shared facilities" and "I should be notified of all emotional or physical challenges." They conclude, "We as a family deal with these issues and not the school system," which indicates opposition to the regulation as written.


The commenter explicitly says "FULLY SUPPORT" and urges, "Let’s provide a safe and supportive environment for our LGBTQ+ students," which clearly endorses adoption of the policy. There is no indication of opposition or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly asks, "Please do not allow this travesty of a document even to be considered," which is a clear rejection of the proposed policies. Phrases like "not manipulated," "not indoctrinated," and "latest agenda of social experimentation" show opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "i strongly support this legislation" and gives the reason "for the protection of trans children," which clearly endorses adoption of the policy. There is no indication of opposition or neutrality.


Caring for people doesn't mean lying to them about their biological sex

The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, saying schools should "Stop lying to children about who they are" and calling the transgender guidance "non-scientific trans stuff." The comment argues the regulation is "damaging" and should not be imposed on Virginia schools.


The commenter explicitly rejects the premise of the policy by calling transgender theology a "revisionist" view that "violates God’s clearly articulated and intentional design for the two sexes." The comment argues that sex is fixed as "male and female" and says the policy's underlying approach "distorts His image and His plan," indicating opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly feel transgender students they deserve the same rights as every other student" and says they should be "protected from those who want to harm them." This clearly endorses the regulation’s protective purpose for transgender students.


the 1st amendment secures freedom of religion which cannot be taken away.

The commenter argues that the government "does not have the right to mandate gender discussion without Parents approval" and that gender topics are "within the family," which clearly اعتراضs to the proposed policies. The reference to the First Amendment and parental responsibility indicates opposition to state guidance on transgender student treatment in schools.


!STRONGLY OPPOSE! YOU CAN NOT CHANGE YOUR DNA!!! STOP THE LIES PROTECT FAMILY USA "IN GOD WE TRUST"

The commenter explicitly says "!STRONGLY OPPOSE!" and repeatedly urges officials to "Stop" the policy, calling it "lies" and saying children should be kept to their "born gender." The request to "Keep the boy, girl and teacher bathrooms separate" also shows opposition to the regulation's transgender accommodations.


As a non-binary person and former trans student in VA, FULLY SUPPORT.

The commenter explicitly says "FULLY SUPPORT" and repeatedly urges adoption of the policies, stating that "Implementing positive and highly integrated support policies would save lives" and "Integrate empathic policies." The comment describes harmful past experiences to argue for stronger protections and support for transgender students, not against the regulation.


SUPPORT because only REAL, TRUE Americans want freedom and liberties for all!

The commenter explicitly says "SUPPORT" and states that "This document should be adopted". They argue it will protect people from discrimination and preserve "individual liberties and freedoms," which clearly endorses the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says they are "Highly in support of this legislature" and repeatedly urges approval, ending with "Stand for trans rights!!" The rest of the comment reinforces support for the policy's protections for transgender students.


The comment explicitly says "yes," which indicates approval of the proposed regulation. The title "Transgender Rights" also aligns with support for the policy's purpose.


Strongly Oppose - Parents Must Be Accountable for Children

The commenter explicitly labels the submission "Strongly Oppose" and objects to the policy because he believes parents should be informed if a child is "assum[ing] a role as a boy/man" without his knowledge. He frames the regulation as leaving him "lied to or left out of the loop," indicating rejection of the transgender student guidance as written.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose" the policy and objects to "allowing a male by birth enter into a female bathroom." The comment argues against transgender students using sex-segregated facilities and frames the policy as harmful to girls and women.


The commenter explicitly states, "I strongly oppose this," which directly indicates opposition to the proposed regulation. The title also says "Strongly oppose," reinforcing the same position.


Transgender recognition in public schools- strongly opposed

The commenter explicitly says, "Please do not adopt this transgender policy in our public schools," which is a direct request to reject the regulation. The statement that it "will ultimately harm our children" reinforces opposition rather than support or neutrality.


The comment explicitly says "Oppose" and repeats "oppose!!", indicating clear rejection of the proposed policies. No supporting or neutral language is present.


The commenter explicitly says, "I fully support legislation" and describes it as "a needed first step," which clearly endorses adoption of the regulation. The stated reason is to "promote the health and wellbeing of trans students."


The commenter explicitly says, "I support education" and criticizes opposition as "misinformation peddled by religious narratives," indicating approval of the proposed transgender student policies. There is no request to weaken or reject the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I wholeheartedly support this guidance" and "I therefore welcome and support its implementation." They also argue it will "reduce those real and significant harms" to trans youth, indicating clear approval of adoption.


The commenter repeatedly rejects the policy as a "disgrace," "a joke," and "this craziness," and says it is "attempting to take the parents rights away." They explicitly argue the regulation should not be implemented and suggest transgender-confused students should be homeschooled instead.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Support the Regulations" and states they are "glad that new guidance is being implemented to protect trans children and teens." They also affirm that "No child should have to face discrimination in Virginia schools," which clearly endorses adoption of the policy.


The commenter explicitly states, "Strongly oppose" and "I do not support this at all," which clearly indicates rejection of the proposed policies. There is no qualifying language suggesting support or neutrality.


So Awful!! Are any of the supporters even reading what is in this?

The commenter explicitly calls the policy "terrible" and says it "opens up my kids" to fear, indicating rejection of the regulation. They object to bathroom access and to being punished for "misgender[ing]" someone, which shows opposition to the proposed transgender student policies.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY OPPOSE" and argues there is "no need to forcefully enact this policy." They also call it "indoctrination" and object to bathroom access based on transgender identity, indicating rejection of the regulation.


Fully support! Transgender students deserve to be supported at their schools

The commenter explicitly says "Fully support!" and argues that transgender students should be "supported" and their gender identity "recognized and respected." They also oppose arguments against the policy, calling anti-transgender policies discriminatory and saying biblical definitions "do not belong in public schools or state legislation."


The commenter explicitly says "NOT IN SUPPORT AT ALL" and asks "Would you want your daughters topless around a bunch of boys," indicating clear rejection of the proposed transgender student policies. The comment argues the policy would create "very bad situations" and references sexual assault concerns as reasons to oppose it.


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


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose the 'rules' regarding transgender issues for public schools!" This is a clear rejection of the proposed regulation rather than a request for changes or clarification.


The commenter explicitly labels the comment "Strongly Support" and argues that "schools should provide more support for all transgender students." The body consistently endorses equal treatment, respect, and support for transgender students in schools.


The commenter explicitly says, "Strongly, very strong oppose transgender policies concerning VA schools!!" This is a clear rejection of the proposed policies rather than a request for changes or a neutral remark.


The commenter explicitly says "I OPPOSE PASSIONATELY" and describes the policy as "a huge overreach." They also argue that existing no-bullying rules already cover the issue and ask to "allow parents to guide their children," indicating rejection of the proposed regulation.


The commenter explicitly titles the comment "Fully Support" and says "There is no reason it should be 2021 and Virginia doesn't have A COMPREHENSIVE school policy" for transgender youth. The body clearly endorses adopting the policy and urges the state to "believe in science" and improve protections for transgender students.


The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose this shift in policy," which directly states opposition to the proposed regulation. They further argue that school policy should defer to parents' choices, indicating they do not want this policy adopted.


The commenter explicitly asks policymakers to "refrain from allowing transgendered students to use school bathrooms of the opposite, natural sex" and says "Please do NOT subject our children" to this policy. They also oppose transgender students participating in sports aligned with their gender identity, arguing they should use their "natural born sex" facilities and teams.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY OPPOSE" and urges parents to "pull their children from public schools" because of these regulations. The statement "We need to stand up for our children" and the call to keep children home indicates rejection of the proposed policies.


men can't be women, women can't become men

The commenter explicitly rejects the premise of the transgender policies, stating that "a man cannot become a woman and a woman cannot become a man" and calling the transgender movement's claims "falsehoods." The comment frames the policies as contrary to a Christian worldview and argues against recognizing transgender identities or related accommodations.


Transgender rights and reading comprehension!

The commenter explicitly says, "I fully support implementing policies to promote the health and well-being of trans youth" and describes the proposal as evidence-based best practices that should be implemented. They also argue the policies are required by Virginia Code and should ensure students are "safe and free from bullying and harassment," which clearly endorses adoption.


The risk of violence and suicide for transgender youth is too widespread to ignore

The commenter explicitly says, "I support this policy" and repeatedly argues for protecting transgender youth through the policy. The body frames the regulation as necessary to reduce "victimization, bullying, and suicide," indicating clear approval of adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support this policy," which directly endorses adoption. They also give a reason in favor of it: "All children deserve equal protection from bullying."


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


Absolutely opposed - extremely destructive to kids and families?

The commenter explicitly says, "I am absolutely opposed to the proposed policy changes" and repeats "I am absolutely opposed to this! No! No! No!" They argue the policy is harmful, undermines parents, and conflicts with religious values, indicating clear rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support legislation needed to promote the health and well-being of trans youth" and urges creating "an inclusive environment that supports ALL of our children." The comment defends the proposed policies and argues for their adoption to protect trans students' safety and mental health.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support" and "I strongly support," indicating clear approval of the regulation. They further justify this by emphasizing that "The safety, well being, and happiness of trans and non-binary children shouldn’t be debated," which aligns with adopting the policy.


The comment explicitly says "Strongly Oppose!" and frames the policy as threatening "the protection of innocent children." This indicates clear rejection of the proposed transgender student policies rather than support or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly labels the comment "Opposed" and says "these guidelines just overstep public education boundaries" and asks for "reasonable proposals" instead of a "dramatic shift in ideology." Although they express support for respecting trans students, their overall position is that the proposed guidelines are too expansive and should not be adopted as written.


The commenter explicitly says "OPPOSE this bill 100%!!!!" and repeatedly urges officials to "reconsider this policy" and "draft a new policy". The body argues the regulation fails to protect "privacy, security" and "girls," and describes it as an "overreach" that effectively makes bathrooms and locker rooms "coed."


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Support" and adds "Support trans kids!" They also state "It will save lives," which clearly endorses adoption of the regulation.


I oppose strongly - Schools are there to teach not to help my children explore their sexual identity

The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose strongly" and repeats "I STRONGLY OPPOSE!" They argue the policy is a "direct violation of parental rights and sovereignty" and an "encroachment on religious freedom," indicating clear rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support this bill" and frames it as "advocating for the health of our trans youth," which clearly endorses adoption of the regulation. There is no opposing language or request to weaken the policy.


The commenter explicitly says "I strongly oppose these policy changes" and argues the policy "ENDANGERS our children" rather than protecting them. They also frame the proposal as allowing "more opportunity for sexual abuse" and call it "a recipe for disaster," indicating clear rejection of adoption.


The commenter strongly rejects the regulation, asking rhetorically, "HOW DO YOU LET" school staff do invasive checks and calling the policy "very illegal" and "sexual harassment." They also demand that the senator "HAS TO LEAVE THE GOVERNMENT," indicating clear opposition rather than support or neutrality.


Strongly support — we must do everything we can to affirm kids’ identities as they are growing up.

The commenter explicitly says, "Strongly support" and argues the policy is "doing the bare minimum" to "affirm and protect trans students." They also state that students need to feel safe in school and that the policy helps prevent harm and distraction from learning.


The commenter says, "I am so opposed to this!" and argues the policy would encourage "moral, life altering, body altering decisions" for children. The closing plea, "Let them be children still!!" clearly rejects the regulation.


Strongly Support transgender education guidance

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support these guidelines," which directly endorses adoption of the regulation. They also affirm the policy goals by stating transgender students should be "treated in accordance with their gender identity" and "supported in their transitions."


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support trans rights in schools," which clearly endorses the regulation’s purpose. They also state that trans individuals "deserve to feel safe and respected," aligning with the policy’s goals of protection and inclusion.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY support!" and argues that schools should protect transgender students and "provide a warm and loving environment." They frame the policy as necessary because "Trans kids deserve a space" and criticize opposition as harmful.


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


The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose strongly" and repeats "STRONGLY OPPOSE!" They argue the policy would let schools "help my children explore their sexual identity" and claim it violates "parental rights and sovereignty" and "religious freedom," indicating clear rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly states, "I am opposed to this policy" and repeats, "I am opposed to this," which clearly indicates rejection of the proposed regulation. No supporting or neutral language is present.


The commenter explicitly rejects the regulation, stating "This should NEVER be passed ANYWHERE!!" This is a clear call for rejection rather than support or a neutral question/comment.


STONGLY OPPOSE. TRANS CRAP IS A PRODUCT OF MOLESTATION AND DEGENERATE PARENTS

The commenter explicitly says "STONGLY OPPOSE" and "Absolutely not," rejecting the proposed policies. They also argue against the existence of "TRANS kids" and call for police involvement, indicating clear opposition to adoption of the regulation.


Strongly oppose this bill. You cannot overstep parental rights.

The commenter explicitly says, "Strongly oppose this bill" and asks, "Please do not allow this bill to be approved." They argue the policy "overstep[s] parental rights" and object to schools "pushing parents voices out," indicating clear rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "I STRONGLY SUPPORT this bill" and repeatedly endorses inclusive, anti-discriminatory treatment of transgender students. They also urge, "Don't further marginalize and discriminate against trans students," which clearly supports adoption of the regulation.


In Support of the Pursuit of Life, Liberty, and Happiness

The commenter explicitly urges action in favor of the policy, saying "Let lived experiences rise above the opinions of others" and that "This decision will protect the rights of all children." The body presents data on mistreatment of transgender students to justify adopting the regulation and ending "this history of trauma."


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, saying "Now they want that for kids. No. Go yourself." The rest of the comment attacks transgender people and frames the regulation as harmful to children, indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY OPPOSE!!!!!!" and calls the policy "a very dangerous policy!!" They ask to "reconsider other options" and argue against allowing students to use bathrooms or locker rooms of their choice, indicating rejection of the proposed guidance.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose Bill 145 and 161" and repeats "OPPOSE Bill 145 and 161." They argue the bills are a "gross overreach of government" that undermine "parental rights" and family authority, indicating clear rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do not support and oppose this" and "I object," which clearly rejects the proposed policies. They also argue to "Stop abusing our children" and say to "Let them decide as adults," indicating opposition to implementing the regulation for students.


The comment is too brief and garbled to interpret reliably. It only says "No. off s," which suggests rejection but does not clearly reference the regulation or provide a coherent position.


All in support are CHILD MOLESTERS! Round them all up and eradicate them.

The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, saying "Say no to this" and framing transgender students and supporters as dangerous. The comment is strongly hostile toward the regulation and its subject matter, not supportive or neutral.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy’s premise, saying their kids will be taught to ignore these "transkids" and opposing the guidance. The statement "Bring back BULLYING" and the claim that transgender students should be treated as "the gender they are not" indicate clear hostility toward the regulation’s protections.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy with "hell no" and says "Keep all the LGBT elsewhere," indicating they do not want the regulation adopted. The remainder of the comment is abusive and hostile toward LGBT people, reinforcing opposition rather than support or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly says, "Strongly support this bill!" and argues that "Transgender students must be protected and supported at all costs." This is a clear endorsement of adopting the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says they are "absolutely opposed to the policies proposed by the VDOE" and rejects the proposal as an "agenda" being pushed onto children. They also object that it "allows life choices to be made for our children" without parental involvement, indicating clear opposition to adoption of the regulation.


Strongly opposed this bill. Appalling it's even being considered! Protect our children

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose this bill," which directly states opposition to adoption. The additional phrase "Protect our children!" reinforces a negative view of the regulation, though it does not add specific policy details.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support clear guidance and consistent expectations across Virginia's public schools" and thanks the agency for its work. They also ask for "further guidance" to expand inclusion, which indicates support for the regulation with possible strengthening rather than opposition.


SUPPORT SUPPORT SUPPORT!! SHAME ON THOSE WHO OPPOSE

The commenter explicitly urges approval with repeated "SUPPORT SUPPORT SUPPORT!!" and defends LGBT students, saying they "deserve so much love and support." The final line, "THIS BILL IS ROLLING OUT ANYWAY," also indicates endorsement of the regulation rather than opposition.


Strongly support!! These comments suggest need for protection and support of trans students.

The commenter explicitly says "Strongly support" and argues that trans students need "protection, support, and equity." They also state that students "deserve to feel safe and supported" in school, which clearly endorses adopting the regulation.


The comment explicitly states "Strongly Oppose," which clearly indicates the commenter wants the regulation rejected. No additional context or qualifications are provided.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY SUPPORT!!" and argues that "Transgender lives are equally as important as anyone else's," indicating clear approval of the proposed policies. The rhetorical question about having "a transgender child" reinforces support for protections and respectful treatment.


The commenter explicitly endorses the policy with "trans rights are Human rights" and the enthusiastic title "agree!!!". The remark is clearly in favor of protections for transgender students rather than opposing them.


The commenter explicitly says, "I am opposed to this bill" and calls it "ridiculous," indicating clear rejection of the proposed policies. Although they add that they have "no hate" and "only love," the overall position is still opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "Support all children regardless of how they self identify," which clearly endorses the regulation’s protective approach toward transgender students. The statement about children having "the right to decide who they want to be in a safe environment" further supports adoption of the policy.


Strongly Oppose - Stop this indoctrination !!!

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose" the draft policies and repeats "I strongly oppose this VDOE’s policy!!!" They argue it violates "parent’s rights," hides information from parents, and compromises privacy and safety, all of which indicate rejection of the regulation.


Strongly Support, only a Bigot would oppose this

The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Support" and argues "We must support our children in any form they come in," which clearly endorses adoption of the regulation. The rest of the comment attacks opponents, but the policy position is unambiguous support.


Prove Children can suddenly be born with wrong genitals by accident. YOU CANT !  Brainwashing.

The commenter clearly rejects the regulation, calling it "Brainwashing" and a "perverted CULT agenda" and arguing it should not be used in schools. They repeatedly frame the policy as harmful to children and parents, asking "Why would it be ok to continually ignore Parents and Girls ?" and describing it as "Blatant Evil."


The commenter explicitly says, "I absolutely support this initiative," which directly endorses adoption of the regulation. They further argue that public schools should provide a safe education free from "fear of persecution and the distractions of bigotry" and that a trans student's rights should prevail, indicating clear support for the policy's goals.


The commenter explicitly says "I 100% support" the policy and praises "protecting the mental health and overall well-being of our transgender youth." They also endorse the regulation as a way to protect rights and reduce suicide risk, indicating clear approval of adoption.


The commenter explicitly says the bill "absolutely need[s] to be passed" and frames it as necessary "for the sake of our children." They also endorse nondiscrimination and safety protections, stating "We should not discriminate under any circumstance."


The commenter explicitly says, "I support this" and "Strongly am for this," which directly endorses the proposed policies. They also add a general statement of inclusion: "Support all people regardless of gender, religion, ethnicity, or race."


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly support!" and thanks the agency for helping "ALL children" feel "welcome, seen, included, and supported." This is a clear endorsement of the regulation as proposed.


Cease usurping parental rights under the guise of personal choice

The commenter explicitly says the proposal "should be stopped immediately" and calls it "a clear and present danger to children and to women." They argue it is "usurping parental rights" and harming children, indicating strong opposition to adoption of the regulation.


STRONGLY SUPPORT - TRANS RIGHTS ARE HUMAN RIGHTS

The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY SUPPORT" and urges, "Protect the students, all of them!" This clearly endorses adoption of the transgender student policies.


The commenter explicitly states, "I SUPPORT TRANS RIGHTS IN SCHOOLS," which clearly endorses the regulation’s purpose and adoption. The title "IN SUPPORT" reinforces that position.


The commenter explicitly says "strongly support implementing model policies in our schools" and argues that "People who identify as trans deserve protection in our schools." They also emphasize that "All children deserve to participate in school free from harassment," which aligns with adoption of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose this," indicating clear rejection of the proposed policies. The phrase "trying to brainwash our children" further shows opposition to the regulation's treatment of transgender students.


The commenter states plainly, "Opposed to the transgender policy," which directly indicates rejection of the proposed regulation. No qualifying language suggests support or neutrality.


Strongly opposes. God does not make mistakes

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose this policy" and repeatedly rejects the premise of transgender recognition, calling it "transgender trash." They also object to bathroom/locker room access for transgender students, saying they refuse to let their daughter use facilities where "a guy could walk in."


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose the proposed transgender bill" and repeatedly argues against it, calling it a "transgender/LGBTQ agenda" and saying it "puts the teachers & children in situations" that should not occur. They also object to schools acting "behind parents backs" and say teachers should not be forced to "teach & embarce questionable agenda," indicating clear rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose" and argues it is "extremely sad and dangerous" to allow children to "choose" their gender. They also object to "remove parents’ rights," indicating rejection of the proposed transgender student policies.


I doubt anyone who supports this has read anything beyond the title.

The commenter explicitly criticizes the policy as creating "new terms and rules" and says "Not a single thing in the 26 pages makes that job easier for schools or parents." They also argue that "Before 18 it's parents choice how to raise their children," indicating opposition to the regulation's approach to transgender students and school handling of parent-student conflicts.


OPPOSED to the Model Policies for the Treatment of Transgender Students Proposed by the VDOE

The commenter explicitly says she is "opposed to Radical Gender Theory being introduced into our Virginia School System" and asks VDOE to "get back to the job of being educators" and "leave the parenting to parents and the family." These statements clearly reject the proposed transgender student policies and argue they should not be adopted.


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


Public schools is no place for the radical agenda of a few.

The commenter explicitly rejects the proposal as a "radical agenda" and says it "should not be pushed onto everybody in our public schools." They also state, "This proposal is not to protect kids," indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose this initiative" and repeats that it "should be strongly opposed." They argue the policy is "unnecessary" and "goes beyond legal bounds" because it infringes on "parental rights" and "constitutionally-protected religious beliefs."


The commenter explicitly says, "I support this," and endorses the policy’s anti-discrimination purpose. They also argue for sharing research that validates trans people and criticize opposition as "bigotry," indicating clear approval of the regulation.


Strongly oppose. Never support harassment of any kind.But do not encourage children to choose gender

The commenter explicitly says, "Strongly oppose" and "I strongly oppose the encouragement of transgender acceptance in schools." They reject the policy’s premise and argue against teaching children that they can "choose gender," indicating clear opposition to adoption of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support this bill" and repeats support for "the safety of Trans children." The rest of the comment argues that trans children "deserve to feel safe," which clearly endorses adoption of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, saying it is "forcing on the population" a worldview they do not hold and that it is "wrong to force the people of Virginia to teach children and manage schools according to a godless worldview." They also warn that families will leave public schools if the state adopts it, indicating clear opposition to adoption.


Parents must be consulted: Model Policies for the Treatment of Transgender Students

The commenter objects to the guidance’s approach to confidentiality and parental notification, specifically criticizing that information may be withheld from "unsupportive parents." They argue schools should not let a child make "huge, life altering decisions without the knowledge or consent of their parents," indicating opposition to the policy as written.


Strongly support implementation of these guidelines

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support the implementation of these guidelines." They further endorse the policy by stating it will "help the mental health and school participation of students" and that "All students deserve to be treated equally, fairly, and with respect."


The commenter asks, "Why take on another ridiculous and bad idea?" and says to "stick to the basics," indicating opposition to adopting the transgender student policies. The final sentence about teaching children to read, write, and add suggests they want the regulation rejected in favor of core academics.


VA Schools Transgender Policies ~ HELL NO!!!

The commenter explicitly rejects the policy with "HELL NO!!!" and argues it would endanger others, asking "What about the safety of the other children???" The comment frames the regulation as a threat to safety and uses that as the basis for opposition.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support these policy updates" and argues that "Schools should be a safe place for all children to learn." They also say the policies show transgender students "are valued and supported," indicating clear approval of adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support" the policy and frames transgender students as deserving "equal protection in all aspects of our fundamental freedoms." This is a clear endorsement of adopting the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I fully support legislation needed to promote the health and well-being of Trans Youth," which clearly endorses the regulation's purpose. There is no opposing language or qualification that would weaken this support.


Strongly support! Everyone deserves the right to be themselves and to feel comfortable. #transmatter

The commenter explicitly says "I strongly support trans lives" and "We should support this community," indicating clear approval of the proposed policies. The comment also argues against making the transition harder and in favor of helping transgender people feel comfortable, which aligns with adoption of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do not support" and "Strongly oppose," indicating rejection of the policy. They object to schools discussing "sexual orientation/sexuality topics" and to using "he/she/they terminology," which directly targets the transgender-student guidance.


Conflict with 1A Religious Freedom, Dignitatis Humanae and Conscience

The commenter does not reject the regulation; instead, they say it has a "positive moment" and that "This opportunity to realize positive potential" should be preserved. They ask for "detailed and concise language" about conscience and religious liberty to be included, indicating support with requested changes rather than opposition.


The commenter says they "support the people in the LGBTQ community" but argues that the policy's restroom, locker room, and sports provisions create "potential risk," "increased sexual exposure," and unfair competition. They conclude these are "the two biggest issues" that need to be addressed so activities are fair, indicating opposition to the regulation as written.


Concerns about Transgender Policy as currently written

The commenter explicitly says the draft policy is a "SIGNIFICANT OVERREACH" and asks to "Please revise this draft with something more reasonable," indicating opposition to the regulation as written. They object to the policy's handling of parental notification and say it is "harmful" and "horrific," which shows they want substantial changes rather than adoption as-is.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Support" and states that the guidance "is badly needed." They also endorse the policy approach, arguing that privacy should be increased rather than excluding non-binary students from facilities or recognition.


The commenter explicitly says, "I urge you to adopt this guidance," which is a clear endorsement of the regulation. They also frame it as protective, saying it will "keep my child and all others safe."


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Support" and argues that the policies should provide "protections and accommodations" for transgender students. The body clearly endorses adoption of the regulation as a way to help students "feel supported and are able to thrive."


The commenter explicitly says, "I support the Model Policies for the Treatment of Transgender Students in Virginia’s Public Schools." They also endorse the purpose of the policy by stating transgender students "need and deserve to have a safe place to learn."


The commenter explicitly says, "I fully support the policies that are proposed" and repeatedly endorses protection for transgender students. They argue the policies are needed to prevent discrimination, bullying, and targeting in schools.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Support" and urges reviewers to reject the "abusive and hateful language used by those in opposition." They also say "Keep your hateful religion out of the classroom," which clearly endorses the proposed transgender student policies and criticizes opponents.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support this bill" and extends that support to "future bills that move to protect trans lives." This is a clear endorsement of adopting the regulation.


The commenter explicitly labels the comment "Oppose" and asks, "do not put me in the position" to comply with the policy. They say they "will not condone sin" and that their "faith in Jesus Christ will win," indicating rejection of the transgender student policies on religious grounds.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Support" and praises the initiative for giving transgender children "guidance and safe space." This clearly indicates approval of adopting the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "strongly appose this policy," which is a direct rejection of the regulation. They also object that it ignores "biology" and "take[s] control from parents over their kids," reinforcing opposition.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy’s subject by saying, "They do not belong in our schools," which indicates opposition to the regulation. The statement "Transgenders are not human" and the appeal to "God made humans to be male and female" further show a desire to exclude transgender students rather than adopt the policy.


The commenter explicitly says, "I fully support legislation to promote the health and wellbeing of trans youth," which clearly endorses the regulation's purpose. There is no opposing language or qualification that would weaken this support.


The commenter explicitly says, "I absolutely oppose this" and argues the policy should not be adopted. They propose an alternative of separate "unisex bathroom/changing room" facilities and object to allowing transgender students in shared changing areas, citing privacy and majority rights concerns.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose these revisions" and argues they should not be implemented. They also object that it is "a family matter alone" and claim approval would be "forcing this onto other students and teachers," indicating clear opposition to the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support transgender students rights," which clearly endorses the regulation’s purpose. The statement that "any human should have to fight for basic rights and respect" reinforces approval of protections for transgender students.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Oppose" and rejects the policy by stating "transgenders is a mental problem and parents must be involved," which indicates opposition to the regulation. The remark about parental involvement reinforces a desire to weaken or reject the guidance as written.


The comment is explicitly titled "OPPOSE" and argues that "Parents need to be a part of any conversation with the school in regards to the child," indicating resistance to the policy as written and concern about parental involvement. It does not offer support or neutral feedback on the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I fully support this legislation" and thanks the policymakers for "following the science." They also frame the policy as making schools "a safe place" for transgender students, indicating clear approval of adoption.


The commenter explicitly says "support" and adds "so supportive of this!" indicating clear approval of the proposed regulation. There is no contrary language or request for rejection or weakening.


As an educator, I SUPPORT our TRANS YOUTH!

The commenter explicitly says, "I SUPPORT our TRANS YOUTH!" and calls the policy "a step in the right direction." They also endorse respecting students' gender identity, pronouns, name changes, and privacy, indicating clear approval of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly states "strongly oppose," which clearly indicates rejection of the proposed regulation. No additional explanation or qualifying language is provided.


The commenter explicitly says, "Very Much in Favor!" and calls the document "a wonderful guideline" for treating students "with respect and dignity." They also endorse its likely effects, saying "Acceptance and tolerance" will help reduce mental health disparities.


The commenter explicitly states "opposition to proposed transgender regulations" and says the rules would "undercut parents' involvement" and "endanger the bodily privacy and safety of students." This is a clear rejection of the regulation as written.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly disagree" and "School is not the place for this kind of thing," indicating clear opposition to the proposed transgender student policies. They also call it "brainwash[ing] children" and argue it should not be taught in schools, which shows they want the regulation rejected or substantially weakened.


The comment attacks the policy’s underlying premise and implies transgender-related guidance is harmful, calling it part of a scheme to create "confused, stupid, weird, mentally ill people." This is a clear rejection of the regulation rather than support or neutral feedback.


The commenter explicitly attacks the proposal and its authors, saying "you are monsters to propose these things," which indicates rejection of the regulation. The title "VDOE PEDOSADISTS" is also strongly derogatory and hostile toward the policy.


The commenter explicitly says, "I STRONGLY OPPOSE these nonsense guidelines," which is a clear rejection of the proposed regulation. There is no indication of support or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly says, "Thank you for supporting all children," indicating approval of the policy. They further endorse allowing children to "explore and express their identities" and argue it will help them feel "safer" and more focused at school, which aligns with support for the regulation's goals.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support this" and the title reads "Strongly Support this Legislation." They also endorse the policy goals by saying transgender children need to feel safe in schools and that they support "any legislation that makes the world a safer place" for the transgender community.


Strongly support these guidelines for treatment of all students

The commenter explicitly says, "Strongly support these guidelines" and concludes, "This needs to be adopted!" They also endorse the policy’s inclusive approach, stating that "All students need to feel safe at school."


Oppose: respect all people but do not endanger our children physically, mentally, and emotionally

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose this policy" and argues it is "alienating and harmful." They repeatedly urge rejection by warning it will "endanger our children" and create risks in bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers.


The commenter explicitly condemns the policies, stating that "Only those who would support pedosadism would support these policies," which is a clear rejection of the regulation. The language is not a request for changes or clarification but an attack on the policies themselves.


STOP this child abuse from state board of education regarding transgenders.

The commenter explicitly urges readers to "oppose this" and says the proposed policies are "evil" and "the work of the devil." They also call for parents to "remove your child from the public school system" if implemented, showing clear rejection of the regulation.


The commenter says, "My taxes should not pay for child abuse," which is a clear condemnation of the proposed policies and implies they should not be adopted. The comment offers no support or neutral inquiry; it frames the regulation as harmful and abusive.


Model Policies for treatment of Transgender Students

The commenter says the policy "seem[s] to miss the mark" and describes transgender identity as "fraught with abusive and destructive tendencies," indicating rejection of the proposed guidance. The statement that they "pity the child you tell this is a good way to live" further shows disapproval of the policy's underlying approach.


VDOE Needs to Issue a Formal Apology for merely proposing these policies.

The commenter demands a "Formal apology - now" for "merely proposing these policies," which clearly signals disapproval of the regulation. The wording implies the policies should not have been proposed and therefore opposes adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose" the proposed policy and repeatedly urges, "Do not attempt to take control over the right of parents." They object to teachers being required to withhold information from parents and call the policy "unethical," indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The comment explicitly states "Strongly Oppose," which clearly indicates rejection of the proposed regulation. No additional context suggests any support or neutrality.


The commenter rejects the proposed transgender student policies by asserting that "there are only 2 genders" and instructing, "Stop going against science." The bathroom guidance also directly conflicts with the regulation's protections for transgender students, indicating opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support changing guidelines" and argues the policies would "protect trans students" and create "a safe learning environment." The comment consistently endorses the regulation as beneficial for transgender and genderqueer students.


The commenter explicitly says, "I am strongly opposed" and argues against "allowing children of one gender [to] use the restroom of another gender." They also call the policy "pander[ing] to these confused individuals," indicating clear rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says they are "Opposed very much to this specific legislation" and asks officials "not to hastily change legislation." They argue it would "take away parents' rights" and "endanger" others, indicating clear rejection of the proposed policies.


Strongly Opposed - we are fooling ourselves!

The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Opposed" and pleads with lawmakers to "remove this dangerous legislation from consideration." They argue the policy would "remove parental authority" and wrongly "affirm whatever they are believing about themselves," indicating clear rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly argues to "accept EVERYONE" and to create "a safe and fair environment" where "ALL kids can feel safe and be true to who he/she/they are," which aligns with adopting the transgender student policies. The comment frames the regulation as beneficial for student well-being and mental health rather than opposing it.


The commenter explicitly says "Adamantly Opposed" and asks to "Leave the existing restrooms and policies in place," which rejects the proposed transgender student policies. The suggestion to segregate transgender students into separate restrooms and the reference to "delusions" indicate opposition to the regulation's inclusive approach.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose" and argues that schools must protect "the bodily privacy and dignity of all students," which is presented as a reason against the proposed transgender student policies. The comment does not request changes; it rejects the regulation as written.


Model polices are clearly unconstitutional

The commenter explicitly says the model policies are "clearly unconstitutional" and argues they violate "Free Speech and Religious Freedom rights." They object to punishment for pronoun use and to staff being required to follow the policies, indicating opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose this proposed policy," which directly states opposition to adoption. They also reinforce rejection by calling it "anti-science and anti-common sense" and saying it "will harm our children."


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Support!" and adds "Let's support all our students," which clearly endorses adoption of the policy. There is no indication of opposition or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support protections for non-binary, gender non-conforming, trans students" and asks to "Please support these students and families." They also frame the policy as necessary for a "safe learning environment," indicating approval of the regulation's purpose.


In Support to treat all students as human beings and citizens

The commenter explicitly frames the title as "In Support" and repeatedly endorses the need for "guiding documents" and policies that protect transgender and non-binary students. They argue the regulation would improve safety, sanitation, civility, and humane treatment, saying "Safe places and safe people have to be identified" and that students should be treated "with civility and humanity."


The commenter explicitly titles the submission "Strongly oppose" and repeatedly argues against the policy, saying it would "expose our children" to opposite-sex bodies in locker rooms and calling it "illogical." The final sentences reject the underlying premise of transgender identity and ask to "guard our children," indicating opposition to adoption of the regulation.


The commenter says the guidance is "very concerning" and argues that "public schools an government do not have the right to force these type of rules on parents," indicating clear rejection of the regulation. They also object to privacy/confidentiality provisions by saying kids should not "keep things from their parents" and reject the policy's premise about transgender identity.


The commenter explicitly says, "In full support of an inclusive, safe environment for ALL students," which clearly endorses the proposed policies. The signature as a school counselor in-training reinforces that this is an affirmative comment rather than a question or neutral input.


The commenter explicitly labels the submission "Opposed" and says they "vehemently oppose" multiple provisions of the policy. They argue the policy would "promote alternate lifestyles," interfere with "parental rights," and object to shared bathrooms and locker rooms for transgender students.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose" and asks to "Please reconsider this action," indicating rejection of the proposed policies. They argue the guidance is "confusing to children" and that "ignoring... the differences between males and females is harmful," which shows opposition to adoption as written.


Commentary on the Proposed VA Transgender Policy

The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose this proposed guidance" and repeatedly argues it should not be enacted. They object to transgender affirmation, restroom/locker room provisions, and parent-notification language, calling the policy "horrid" and "terrifying."


The commenter calls the proposal an "Abhorrent proposal" and "Draconian regulations," indicating clear rejection. They argue it would "cruelly create emotional distress" and imply the policy should not be imposed, instead saying to "Support judgment of dedicated local school professionals" rather than the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "In full support" of the policy and frames it as creating "an inclusive, safe environment for ALL students." This is a clear endorsement of adoption.


I strongly support a non-discriminitory environment where all children feel safe and enjoy equality.

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly agree with and support the equal rights and inclusion of all students to include transgender youth" and "strongly support a non-discriminitory environment." This clearly endorses the proposed policies' goal of protecting transgender students and preventing discrimination.


The commenter is explicitly "Adamently Opposed" and says the policy "severely tramples the constitutional rights" and "undermines parental rights." They also argue the guidance is a "leftist political agenda" and that "Anything less is cruel," indicating clear rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "OPPOSED!!" and "No support for a one-sided policy," indicating they do not want the regulation adopted. The phrase "ruling by FIAT" further shows rejection of the proposed policy as unfair or imposed.


The commenter explicitly calls the proposal a "bad policy," says it is "reckless," and ends with "Go back to the drawing board!" They argue it should not be adopted because it erodes parents' rights, threatens privacy, and allows bathroom/locker access concerns.


The commenter explicitly says, "I am opposed to the VDOE's proposed guidance" and repeatedly asks that VDOE "scrap this proposed guidance and write new guidance." Although they say students should be supported, they argue the policy "goes overboard" and should not affirm gender identity in the way proposed.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose" and argues the policy is "overstepping the lines of parenting" and should be kept out of schools. They also object to "Encouraging this discussion," indicating rejection of the regulation rather than support with changes.


Opposed to this appalling policy. Parents are parents for a reason. We know what’s best!!!

The commenter explicitly says they are "Opposed to this appalling policy" and repeatedly condemns it as "trash" and "directly harmful." They argue it undermines parental authority and puts children "in harms way," indicating clear rejection of the regulation.


Divisive, anti-science and extreme.  Compromise idea.

The commenter explicitly calls the policy "Divisive, anti-science and extreme" and says it is "extremely damaging to promote any side of the gender dysphoria during the adolescent years." Although they propose a "compromise idea," the substance of the comment argues against the regulation as written and favors a different approach centered on counseling and parental rights.


Totally Disagree With VDOE Transgender Policies

The commenter explicitly says, "I do not approve of or agree with the proposed VDOE guidelines" and repeatedly argues against the policies as "troubling" and in conflict with parental and religious beliefs. They also reject key provisions such as privacy from parents and restroom access based on gender identity, while only offering a possible alternative of single neutral bathrooms.


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


Oppose Gender neutral language, bathrooms and literature. Bathrooms MUST be separated by Gender.

The commenter explicitly says "Oppose" and argues against "gender neutral language, bathrooms and literature." They state that bathrooms "MUST be separated by Gender" and warn the policy will cause harm, harassment, crime, lawsuits, and religious infringement.


The commenter explicitly says, "This is something that should never be taught to children" and "I do not want my child taught this," which clearly rejects the policy. They also argue that "parents should have the decision," indicating opposition to school adoption of these transgender student policies.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Oppose" and calls the bills "reckless". They also argue the policy will "cause damage to our students, families, and school system" and that it undermines parents and places staff in inappropriate positions.


The commenter explicitly states "Strongly oppose" in both the title and body, which clearly indicates rejection of the proposed regulation. No supporting reasons or qualifications are provided.


The commenter explicitly says "I strongly object to these transgender policies" and calls the proposal "a dumpster fire," indicating clear opposition to adoption. Although they begin with "Each student deserves to be treated with respect and dignity," the overall message argues the policy would harm girls and should not be implemented.


Opposed!  Where are the protections for the vast majority of the students??

The commenter explicitly says "Opposed!" and asks to "Please reconsider!" indicating they do not want the regulation adopted. Their concern that it "does not afford protection to the vast majority of students" is a substantive objection to the policy as written.


Support from the federal government for local policies for transgender students

The commenter cites federal support for policies that ensure transgender students can access "sports, restrooms and locker rooms in accordance with their gender identity," which aligns with adopting the proposed guidance. The comment presents this as supportive evidence rather than criticism or a request to weaken the regulation.


I strongly oppose! transgenders need to have their own bathrooms with a ? God made Man and Woman!

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose" and argues the policy is "a horrible idea." They also reject shared facilities for transgender students and instead say to "create jobs and install there own bathrooms and locker rooms," indicating opposition to the regulation as written.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose!" and argues the VDOE has "gone far beyond" what the General Assembly prescribed. They also call the policies an infringement on parents' First Amendment rights and say schools should not accommodate "gender transitions," indicating clear rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Oppose!" and argues the policy is "immoral" and a "perverse agenda and lies." They also reject allowing transgender students access to facilities, asking rhetorically about bathrooms and concluding, "don't expect us to."


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy’s premise, saying that "forcing everyone to pretend along with them is a lot sadder and is not worthy of consideration or accommodation" and calling it "plain stupid." The comment argues against recognizing transgender students in the way the regulation contemplates, indicating opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly rejects the premise of the policy, stating that "Gender cannot be altered" and that any law saying otherwise is "tantamount to a state-mandated article of religious dogma." They urge readers to "Choose reality" and warn against "seeds of chaos and anarchy," indicating clear opposition to the transgender student policies.


The comment rejects the premise of the policy by saying, "There is no such thing as Transgenderism," which clearly signals opposition to the transgender student guidance. The title, "Vote No to Insanity," further indicates the commenter wants the regulation rejected.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly opposed" and argues the proposal is "anti-science" and harmful. They state that "ignoring this truth will bring self-inflicted harm," indicating they want the regulation rejected rather than adopted.


The commenter explicitly says, "I fully support Trans Youth!" and concludes that "The Model Policies are very important" for schools to support transgender students. The rest of the comment describes negative experiences under inadequate policies and uses them as justification for adopting the model policies.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Opposed" and argues the policy would "FORCE teachers or students" to use pronouns they disagree with. They ask to avoid pronouns and frame the regulation as taking away their rights, indicating rejection of the proposed guidance.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY oppose" and describes the policy as an "infringement of parental rights," which clearly indicates rejection of the regulation. There is no supporting or neutral language.


Strongly Opposed.  My child's rights are being trampled

The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Opposed" and argues against key parts of the policy, including pronoun use and restroom/changing room access. They ask to "Think strongly before acting on this" and propose alternatives like using names instead of pronouns and private facilities, indicating rejection of the regulation as written.


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


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly OPPOSE," which directly states opposition to the regulation. The phrase "this is child abuse" is a negative characterization of the policy and reinforces that they want it rejected.


Just because President Childsniffer is now president doesn't mean VDOE can join him in his pedo crap

The commenter explicitly attacks the policy as "pedophilic" and says VDOE should not "mandate" it, indicating clear rejection of the regulation. The language is highly derogatory and frames the policy as harmful and immoral.


VDOE should fire everyone behind these policy proposals - they are obviously sexual deviants

The commenter explicitly rejects the proposed policies, calling them "grooming policies" and demanding that VDOE "fire everyone behind these policy proposals." The body is entirely hostile to adoption and frames the regulation as harmful and abusive.


We elected Ralph "Kill the Babies" Northram to Governor, now he wants them all to be sexually abused

The commenter explicitly says the policies "should be opposed at every level and in every way possible" and repeatedly condemns them as "grooming policies" and "transgender nonsense." The comment is a vehement rejection of the regulation rather than a request for changes.


Dr. Samantha Hollins, shame on you, you support pedos, you should be fired, issue a formal apology.

The commenter explicitly condemns the policy as "sick and disgusting" and says the official "should be fired," which indicates clear opposition to adoption. The demand for a "formal apology" further shows rejection rather than support or neutrality.


Shannon McKay, shame on you for your pedosadistic policy proposals

The commenter directly condemns the policy proposal, saying "shame on you for your pedosadistic policy proposals," which clearly expresses rejection of the regulation. There is no indication of support or a neutral informational question.


Emily Webb shame on you for your pedosadistic policy proposals

The commenter condemns the policy proposal directly, calling it "pedosadistic" and saying "shame on you," which indicates clear rejection of the regulation. There is no request for modification or support, only abuse toward the proposal.


Emily Sproul shame on you for your pedosadistic policy proposals

The commenter explicitly condemns the policy proposals, saying "shame on you for your pedosadistic policy proposals," which is a clear rejection of the regulation. No supportive or neutral policy argument is offered.


Vee Lamneck shame on you for your pedosadistic policy proposals

The commenter explicitly condemns the policy proposals, saying "shame on you for your pedosadistic policy proposals," which indicates clear rejection of the regulation. The language is abusive and directed at the proposed policies rather than offering support or neutral input.


Ted Lewis shame on you for your pedosadistic policy proposals

The commenter explicitly condemns the policy proposals, saying "shame on you for your pedosadistic policy proposals," which is a clear rejection of the regulation. No supportive or neutral language appears.


Darrell Sampson  shame on you for your pedosadistic policy proposals

The commenter explicitly condemns the policy proposals, saying "shame on you" and calling them "pedosadistic," which is a clear rejection of the regulation. There is no language suggesting support or a request for modification; it is purely denunciatory.


Joseph Wharff shame on you for your pedosadistic policy proposals

The commenter explicitly condemns the policy proposals, calling them "pedosadistic" and saying "shame on you," which indicates clear rejection of the regulation. There is no language suggesting support or a request for modification; it is a direct attack on the proposed policies.


Rebecca Askew shame on you for your pedosadistic policy proposals

The commenter explicitly condemns the policy proposals, saying "shame on you for your pedosadistic policy proposals," which is a clear rejection of the regulation. No supportive or neutral policy-specific argument is offered.


The commenter condemns the policy as "unthinkable" and objects that government would "usurp a parent's authority or influence over their child(ren)." This clearly indicates opposition to the proposed transgender student policies.


Perversion at its worse. Psychopaths at best.

The commenter clearly rejects the policy, calling it "Perversion" and attacking the idea that school staff should "raise and influence our children emotional needs" or "focus my children sexuality." The comment argues schools should stick to "reading, writing and arithmetic," indicating opposition to the transgender student policies.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose" and calls the policy "bad policy" and "Horrible from the beginning." They reject the premise of the regulation by asserting "There are two sexes only" and dismissing the underlying transgender framework.


Toxic and pernicious to our children and society

The commenter explicitly states "Opposed" and calls the policy "terrible" and "toxic and pernicious," indicating clear rejection of the regulation. They also criticize the policy as "one sided in favor of the transgender delusion," showing opposition to its transgender-student protections.


The commenter explicitly says they are "in full support of legislation to protect the health and well being of all students in Virginia schools" and urges that "policies must be implemented in schools." The comment also endorses protections for transgender students by noting they face harassment and bullying and saying "This must change."


The comment is explicitly titled "Reject" and argues against the policy's underlying premise, calling it "anti-evidentiary" and mocking "gender theory." It clearly rejects the regulation rather than supporting it or asking for clarification.


STOP this blatant indoctrination and HELP the confused kids who need counseling.

The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, saying "NO WAY does this belong in our society" and "Stop this nonsense." They argue schools should "help the poor kids who are gender confused" instead of "promote the fantasy and confusion," indicating opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly calls the proposal "damaging garbage" and says to "get rid of these fools who are proposing" it, which is a clear rejection of the regulation. The phrase about "removing the rights of those to object" further indicates opposition to the policy's adoption.


The commenter explicitly urges Virginia to "take the lead in recognition and special needs" of this population and says "we must provide the support to the youth and family that they need." This clearly endorses the policy’s supportive approach toward transgender/LGBT youth rather than opposing it.


The commenter explicitly says, "Please reject HB 145 and SB 161," and argues the model regulations "infringe the First Amendment rights of parents" and "go against a parent's right to lead and guide their own children." This is a clear request to reject the regulation.


The commenter rejects the premise of the policy, stating that there are only "2 genders....male and female" and that gender "DOES NOT CHANGE." By calling this "GOD's policy" and saying it "cannot be changed," the comment clearly opposes adopting transgender student protections.


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

The commenter explicitly says, "Please do not pass this legislation" and titles the comment "Strongly Oppose." They argue the policy will have a "negative impact" and object to children determining gender identity without parental involvement.


The commenter explicitly says "strongly opposed!" and rejects the policy on religious grounds, stating "God made man and woman". The phrase "Give them a confused bathroom" is derogatory and indicates opposition to transgender accommodations in the regulation.


Support of Model Policies Regarding Treatment of Transgendered Students

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support the model policies regarding treatment of transgendered students" and describes the changes as "long overdue." They also state the policies would "promote an inclusive environment in public education," indicating clear approval of adoption.


Model Policies for the Treatment of Transgender Students - comment

The commenter explicitly endorses the policy’s core purpose, saying it is “critically important” that students have a “safe and supportive learning environment free from discrimination and harassment.” They also argue for protecting transgender youth from bullying and conclude, “Let’s begin with our laws backing up what we say we believe in,” which clearly supports adoption of the model policies.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly opppse!" and frames the policy as a harmful "liberal, godless dictates," indicating clear rejection of the regulation. The statement that their values "do not get overridden" further supports opposition.


The commenter explicitly says, "I cannot support this bill in any way" and opens with "STOP THIS NOW," which clearly rejects the regulation. They argue it is "detrimental to the mental health of all children" and would cause lasting harm, indicating strong opposition rather than a request for changes.