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

The comment explicitly says "Strongly Oppose!" which directly states opposition to adopting the proposed regulation. No additional context or qualifications are provided.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support this well-researched and evidence-based proposal" and repeatedly endorses the policy as creating "safer, more inclusive learning environments." They also reject objections by stating it "does nothing but support marginalized students."


Support! TRANS RIGHTS ARE HUMAN RIGHTS. Anyone opposing this is cold hearted and ignorant.

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support this" and repeatedly endorses the policy as protecting transgender people. The rest of the comment attacks opponents, but the stance toward adoption is unambiguously supportive.


VDOE Trans and Non-Binary Student Protections

The commenter explicitly urges "passage of protections for our transgender and nonbinary students" and says it "only makes sense to allow these kids" to use facilities matching their gender identity. The comment also endorses "full participation in sports, gym class, and everything else," clearly supporting adoption of the regulation.


The comment explicitly says "Strongly Oppose!" and repeats "Strongly Oppose," which clearly indicates rejection of the proposed regulation. No supporting or neutral language is present.


The commenter explicitly states "STRONGLY SUPPORT" and repeats "Strongly support," which clearly endorses adoption of the regulation. No contrary language or qualifications are present.


The commenter explicitly labels the submission "OPPOSE" and says "Leave politics outside the school," indicating rejection of the transgender student policies. The request to focus only on core subjects implies they do not want this regulation adopted in schools.


Strong support: this will save trans youth's lives

The commenter explicitly says, "I want to voice my strong support for this guidance document" and argues that it will "save lives." They also state that schools should be trained to provide "support, resources, and protection for trans students," which clearly endorses adoption of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "STRONGLY oppose transgender policies!" This is a clear rejection of the proposed regulation and indicates they do not want it adopted.


The commenter explicitly labels the proposal "Strongly Oppose" and repeatedly argues it is "outrageous" and "taking it TOO FAR." They object to bathroom access, gender identity support in schools, and say the policy puts "many at risk," indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly labels the proposal "OPPOSE - VERY PROBLEMATIC" and argues that VDOE has "gone far beyond the path the General Assembly prescribed." They repeatedly reject the policies as harmful, saying schools should not promote gender transitions and that the regulations infringe parents' First Amendment rights.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do not support this!" and frames the policy as something their child "SHOULD Not be forced" to follow. They also state, "We are a Christian family and do not support this bill," indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS TRAVESTY," which is a direct rejection of the proposed transgender student policies. The phrase "you are trying to inflict on our children" shows opposition to adoption and a hostile view of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly titles the submission "Strongly Oppose" and repeatedly argues the policy is "ridiculous" and "unacceptable." They object to transgender student accommodations, saying schools should not "teach" sexual identification and expressing concern about "students of the opposite sex using the same restroom."


The commenter explicitly states "STRONGLY OPPOSE!" and the title says "STRONGLY oppose transgender policies," which clearly indicates rejection of the proposed regulation. There is no qualifying language suggesting support or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose the Transgender School Policy," which directly rejects the regulation. The follow-up statement that schools should "get back to the basics" reinforces opposition to adopting this policy.


The commenter explicitly says it is "concerning that the school boards would even consider this to pass" and calls the policy "a threat" and "child abuse," indicating clear opposition to adoption. They also urge schools to "stick to teaching the ABC’s" rather than implementing the policy.


The commenter explicitly says "Opposed" and argues that "Parenting minors is the right of the parents, not the school or government," which rejects the regulation’s role in schools. The phrase "Wake up!" reinforces that they want the policy rejected rather than adopted.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support the implementation of this policy" and praises it as "thoughtful, evidence-based," "clear and comprehensive." They also argue it would help schools support gender diverse youth and could be a "model policy" for other states.


THIS WILL END PUBLIC SCHOOLS AS WE KNOW IT! STRONGLY OPPOSE!!!YOU

The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY OPPOSE" and warns not to bring "this disgusting evil to our schools." They also threaten to withdraw children, indicating clear rejection of the proposed policies.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Oppose!" and repeats "Strongly, strongly, strongly opposed." They object to the policy as "way overstepping parental rights" and call it "pure evil," indicating clear rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly states "Fully support" and "Absolutely support," which clearly endorses adoption of the regulation. There is no qualifying language or criticism suggesting opposition or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support this bill to protect trans youth," which directly endorses adoption of the regulation. The stated reason indicates approval of the policy's protective aims.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support the guidance," which directly endorses adoption of the regulation. The title "Support!" reinforces the same position.


The commenter explicitly says, "Please support transgender rights!" and argues that transgender people "deserve to be protected." The comment frames the policy as a way to teach children respect and protection, indicating approval of the regulation's purpose.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support the protection of trans kids in school" and argues that schools should let them "feel comfortable with who they are." The comment clearly endorses the regulation’s purpose of protecting transgender students rather than opposing it.


I support all LGBTQ+ rights, trans included

The commenter explicitly says, "I support any and all legislature that supports and protects LGBTQ+ children and adults," which clearly endorses the regulation. They also add that "Everyone deserves to feel and be safe," reinforcing support for protections for transgender students.


The commenter explicitly says "SUPPORT!!" and endorses the policy by stating "Trans rights are human rights" and "let kids be who they are in school." This clearly indicates approval of the regulation.


In Support of Policies for Treatment of Transgender Students

The commenter explicitly says, "I am in full support of the guidelines developed in support of transgender students" and argues that teachers should create "a safe and nurturing learning environment for all students." The rest of the comment provides evidence and explanation in favor of the policy, not criticism or opposition.


Strongly oppose! To give ppl no choice is not american!

The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose!" and calls the proposal "very wrong" and a "Disgusting bill." They object to parents not having a choice and claim it is "an abuse of power," indicating clear opposition to adoption of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose these policies being considered by our Department of Education," which is a clear rejection of the regulation. They also argue it is a "gross overstep" and that it should remain within "the parent/ guardian/ family's right" to handle these issues, indicating opposition to adoption.


Mental illness needs to be treated not celebrated.

The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, saying schools should not “push a social agenda” and objecting to “boys in girls rooms or girls in boys rooms.” They also argue the guidance is “wrong” and “dangerous,” indicating opposition to adoption of the transgender student policies.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose" and argues that the DOE should stick to academics rather than this policy. The statement that it is "parents responsibilities to raise the children as they see fit" indicates rejection of the regulation's involvement in transgender student treatment policies.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly support" and specifies support for "the guidance to trans children," indicating approval of the proposed regulation. There is no language suggesting opposition or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose this Transgender Policy" and repeatedly urges rejection of the rule. The rest of the comment reinforces opposition by arguing the policy would "force your opinions and beliefs on everybody else" and should be left to parents.


The commenter explicitly says "YES! STRONGLY SUPPORT" and states "This is the direction we need to be moving." They also praise the document as "well thought out and researched" and emphasize its "upsides in terms of safety."


The comment explicitly says "Oppose" and adds "We need to protect our children," which signals rejection of the proposed transgender student policies. Although brief, the wording implies concern that the regulation would harm children or undermine their protection.


The comment explicitly says "SUPPORT" and "SUPPORT TRANS KIDS," which clearly endorses the proposed transgender student policies. There is no language indicating opposition or neutrality.


Transgender boy in boys bathroom next ends up pregnant LGBTQ?

The comment explicitly says "Oppose!" and the title expresses alarm about "Transgender boy in boys bathroom" and "pregnant LGBTQ?", indicating rejection of the proposed transgender student policies. No supportive or neutral language appears.


The commenter explicitly says, "I Support the Guidance Document" and argues that the guidance is "vital" for trans, non-binary and gender non-conforming students. The comment clearly endorses adoption and frames it as a positive example for all students.


VA Dept of Education guidance documents re: supporting transgender kids in public schools

The commenter explicitly says, "I wholeheartedly support trans-affirming guidance and policies," which directly endorses adoption of the regulation. They also frame it positively as an "equitable, caring, student-centered approach."


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Support Guidance Document" and repeatedly endorses it as "a step in the right direction." They argue it will create "a safer environment" and is based on "medical and psychiatric expertise," indicating clear approval of adoption.


The commenter explicitly titles the submission "Full support" and says "This is a must in my mind," indicating clear approval of the regulation. They further endorse it as "evidence based" and say it "saves lives," which supports adoption rather than rejection or neutrality.


Model Policies for the Treatment of Transgender Students in Virginia’s Public Schools VDOE 22.1-23-3

The commenter explicitly begins with "Oppose" and repeatedly argues against the policy, calling it a "Transgender agenda" and demanding that if it is approved, "Parent-Student Vouchers are included" so families can leave. The comment objects to school privacy practices, transgender recognition, and participation in sports and facilities, indicating clear rejection of the regulation.


Oppose transgender and opposite sex using same bathrooms.

The comment explicitly says "Oppose" and the title states "Oppose transgender and opposite sex using same bathrooms," indicating rejection of the policy’s bathroom-access provisions. It does not request modifications; it clearly objects to the regulation as written.


Mental doesn’t change physical - OPPOSE!

The commenter explicitly labels the submission "OPPOSE!" and says "This policy will only add to this harm," indicating rejection of the regulation. They argue against transgender-related guidance as "falsehoods" and say schools should "refocus... back on education," which shows opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly labels the submission "Support" and says "protections for trans and non-binary students are crucial" and "Good job, VA," which clearly endorses adoption of the policy. The comment frames the regulation as necessary protection for vulnerable children rather than raising objections or questions.


The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose the transgender ideology being pushed upon our children in schools," which clearly rejects the proposed policies. The phrase "being pushed upon our children" indicates opposition to adoption of the regulation and its school implementation.


Retired School Administrator and Grandfather is Opposed

The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose many of the policies of this proposed model," and argues they would undermine parental rights, disrupt schools, and pressure staff to affirm transgender students. The comment also objects that there is "no protection for the school personnel whose religious beliefs are in opposition," indicating rejection of the proposal rather than support for it.


Strongly Oppose draft policies on Transgender guidelines

The commenter explicitly says, "I do not approve" and "PLEASE do not adopt," making clear they want the guidelines rejected. They also argue the policies are "totally unworkable" and object to them as "mandatory promotion" of ideology, which reinforces opposition.


The commenter explicitly says, "I fully support the proposed document," which directly endorses adoption. They also argue that transgender youth "need appropriate support" and reference "scientific evidence" and a "medical/biological basis," reinforcing approval of the policy.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY OPPOSE proposed guidelines" and repeatedly argues to "Stay out of it!!" They object to pronoun use, school involvement in gender identity, and transgender students using bathrooms/locker rooms, indicating clear rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I fully support the proposed document," which directly endorses adoption. They also argue that transgender youth "need appropriate support" and reference "scientific evidence" backing the policy's premise, reinforcing clear support.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly agree to protect trans youth" and repeats "Protect trans youth," which clearly endorses the regulation’s purpose. There is no indication of opposition or neutrality.


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


The commenter explicitly says, "I cannot support these policies" and frames the proposal as an "agenda" that contradicts their religious beliefs. They also argue it would worsen safety, claiming open bathrooms would create "more possibilities for bullying" and abuse.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, saying "Please don't be fooled (brainwashed) by these radical few" and arguing that children should use "the bathroom that goes with what is between one's legs." The comment frames the guidance as "very confusing policies" that would "confuse our children," indicating clear opposition to adoption.


support for nonbinary, trans, two spirit, and genderqueer youth

The commenter explicitly says "Support for nonbinary, trans, two spirit, and genderqueer youth" and affirms that "You deserve better" and "Everyone deserves to be treated as a human with unique value and worth." This is clear endorsement of the policy’s protective intent for transgender and gender-diverse students.


Strong support of this guidance document (Model Policies for the Treatment of Transgender Students i

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support this guidance document" and argues it is "imperative" to provide a "supportive and affirming environment." The comment endorses the policy’s goals of safety, anti-bullying, and nondiscrimination for transgender children.


The commenter explicitly says, "Do not approve this completely misguided policy," which is a direct rejection of adoption. The statement that it is "causing far more harm than good" reinforces opposition rather than a request for modification.


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

The commenter explicitly writes "OPPOSE!!" and repeats the regulation title, indicating clear rejection of the proposed model policies. No supporting or qualifying language is provided.


The commenter explicitly says, "I unequivocally support this guidance," which directly states approval of the regulation. They also endorse its goals by emphasizing that transgender students "must be safe and welcomed" and describing bullying and administrative insensitivity as reasons for the policy.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support the Guidance" and opens with "Thank you for releasing the updated Model Policies." They also describe how the policy would help by allowing a preferred name field and affirming transgender students.


The commenter explicitly states, "I oppose this policy," which directly indicates rejection of the proposed regulation. The title "Transgender Mandate" also signals a negative view of the policy.


The commenter explicitly states, "I oppose," which directly indicates rejection of the proposed regulation. The title also says "Oppose," reinforcing the stance.


The commenter explicitly says, "I wholeheartedly support the guidance," which is a direct endorsement of the proposed regulation. There is no qualifying language or criticism suggesting opposition or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly says, "I SUPPORT LGBTQ RIGHTS" and asks that "ALL RIGHTS BE EQUALLY EXTENDED TO THE LGBTQ COMMUNITY," which clearly endorses the regulation’s purpose of protecting transgender students. There is no opposing language or qualification.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose" and repeats "I strongly oppose" at the end. They argue the policy would let schools "bypass the parent" and influence a "vulnerable and suggestible child," indicating rejection of the regulation.


Oppose policies that deceive and confuse children

The commenter explicitly says the policies “deceive and confuse children” and calls it “a tragedy that adults create policies that perpetuate confusion,” which clearly rejects the regulation. They also argue against key provisions by stating children should accept their “biological sex” and that “Males should not be in female locker rooms” and vice versa.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy’s premise, saying "DON'T FORCE GENDER IDEOLOGY" and urging, "Stop confusing kids!" This indicates opposition to adopting the transgender student policies. The comment also argues that the approach is "not even a logically sustainable way to live," reinforcing a clear anti-policy stance.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose" and argues that "This policy creates a hostile enviroment" for those with religious beliefs. The comment frames the regulation as targeting Christians and other religious groups, indicating rejection of the policy.


LGBTQ supporter BUT I OPPOSE gender confusion being forced on Kindergarten to 12 grade children!

The commenter explicitly says "I OPPOSE" and repeatedly urges officials to "Defend and protect our children!" and "Stop using them for propaganda," indicating rejection of the proposed transgender student policies. The comment argues the policy would harm children and invade privacy, especially in bathrooms, which is a clear substantive opposition to adoption.


Wrong Choice - policies should focus on diversifying girls/boys activities rather than nullify gend.

The commenter explicitly calls the policies a "Wrong Choice" and argues against allowing transgender students to use facilities or compete with the opposite sex. They say students should use sports teams and restrooms "contingent with their assigned sex" and urge protecting children by promoting development of assigned gender instead of treating them as similar to the opposite gender.


The commenter explicitly says "strongly oppose" and objects to "these gender confusion topics being used in our Virginia schools." They further state, "This is not for a school system to teach," indicating rejection of the proposed policies.


The comment argues that "in most cases, there is nothing wrong with our kids" and criticizes "what we teach our kids," implying opposition to policies that affirm transgender identities in schools. Its emphasis on teaching children "what it means to be a 'man' or a 'woman'" and standing for "what is right" suggests it rejects the proposed guidance.


The commenter explicitly says "support - trans rights are human rights" and urges that "We must allow trans youth to exercise their rights to bodily autonomy and freedom of self-identity." This is a clear endorsement of the proposed transgender student policies, framed as necessary support and suicide prevention.


The commenter explicitly says, "I don't think this is something that should be legislated" and argues government should not be involved in these decisions. They frame the policy as a "medical issue" that should remain between "the parents, minor and their doctor," indicating opposition to adopting the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says the document's restroom and locker room provisions "put students at risk" and argues that "the rights of a few should not justify the taking away of rights for many." They also object to "deny natural parental rights" and end by questioning whether anyone is considering "the safety of our daughters in the bathroom and the locker room," indicating opposition to adoption as written.


The commenter explicitly labels the proposal "STRONGLY OPPOSE" and repeatedly urges officials to "PROTECT the children" by rejecting what they call "these lies". They argue that "Boys are male and girls are female" and say "Stop this insanity," indicating clear opposition to the transgender student policies.


STRONGLY OPPOSE The Model Policies for the Treatment of Transgender Students in VA's Public Sc

The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY OPPOSE" and repeatedly urges "oppose it!" throughout the comment. They object to pronoun use, transgender participation in sports, and access to locker rooms, framing the policy as a threat to religion, morality, and female athletics.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support this common sense guidance document" and describes the proposal as "sensible and evidence based." They also argue that supporting transgender youth "has been shown to prevent this harm," indicating approval of adoption.


The commenter explicitly says "Absolutely OPPOSE this harmful policy" and repeatedly argues against adoption, calling it "harmful," a "HUGE OVER STEP," and a threat to "Parental Authority" and "Basic Safety Concerns." The body lists multiple objections to pronouns, bathroom access, parental notification, and school support for gender identity, all framed as reasons to reject the policy.


Strongly oppose these misguided and destructive policies for an educational environment.

The commenter explicitly says the policies "must be rejected" and opens with "Strongly oppose these misguided and destructive policies." They also argue the policies improperly "place the State over the Parent," indicating opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose" and argues the policy is "not okay" and "should not even be something put into law." They also call it "discriminatory," indicating rejection of the regulation rather than support or neutrality.


Staff of public schools should not be required to implement compelled speech

The commenter argues the policy should be stopped, saying "Let's stop it while we are ahead" and criticizing the guidance as forcing schools to allow bathroom access based on gender identity. They frame the regulation as dangerous and illegitimate, referring to it as "fake world" thinking and objecting to transgender accommodations in schools.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, calling it an "outright affront to Religious freedom" and saying it "cannot ever be tolerated." They also frame the guidance as harmful and object to the underlying transgender premise, indicating clear opposition to adoption.


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

The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose" the policy. The phrase "immoral overreach" indicates rejection of the regulation rather than support for adoption with changes.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose" the proposal, which is a clear rejection of the regulation. The phrase "immoral overreach" indicates they view the policy as unacceptable and too expansive.


The commenter explicitly argues that "We must support them" and criticizes efforts to "force them to conform," which aligns with approving the transgender student policies. The comment frames the policies as necessary to protect LGBT youth from bullying and discrimination.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support the guidance" and thanks the agency for "giving space for gender nonconforming students." They also describe the policy as helping students "fully express who they are," indicating clear approval of adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I am proud of our state for drafting this legislation" and states that "we must realize this as Virginians and Americans," which clearly endorses the proposed policies. The comment also emphasizes the importance of teacher support and equity for children, indicating approval rather than criticism.


The commenter explicitly rejects the guidance, saying it "will confuse children" and is "particularly unfair to females" in athletics. Phrases like "Stop denying science" and "deny biological science" indicate opposition to adopting the proposed transgender student policies.


The commenter says the policies provide "absolutely no exceptions or accommodations" and frames them as incompatible with their "religious faith, conscience, or understanding of biology and sociology." The title "This will be a horror show!" also signals clear rejection of the regulation.


Please oppose an unscientific assault on parents and children

The commenter explicitly says "Please oppose" and describes the policy as "an unscientific assault on parents and children." They further argue it is "an attempt to usurp the role of a parent," indicating clear rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "Strongly oppose Model Policies for the treatment of transgender students in public schools." This is a direct rejection of the proposed regulation with no qualifying support or suggested revisions.


The comment explicitly says "Strongly oppose!!" which clearly indicates rejection of the proposed regulation. "God help us!!!" reinforces a negative reaction to the policy.


The commenter explicitly says, "I am opposed to this abusive policy," which directly rejects the regulation. The phrase "hinders not helps these poor confused children" further indicates opposition to the transgender student policies.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose" and argues the policy is "nonsense" and "isn't backed up by science." They also object to "having the opposite sex in bathrooms," indicating rejection of the regulation's transgender student protections.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support these model policies" and repeatedly endorses them as appropriate and sensible. They also argue that staff should be trained and that the policies are "not overly burdensome to schools," which reinforces approval rather than opposition.


This will cause fear and anxiety in our children

The commenter explicitly calls the policies "harmful and dangerous to our children" and says "Anyone with children and a heart can see the harm this does," indicating clear opposition. They object specifically to the pronoun requirement, describing it as "confusing" and a source of "fear and anxiety."


Strongly Support to Affirm Our Most Vulnerable Children

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support this" and frames the policy as necessary to create "a supportive and affirming environment for transgender children." They also argue it is a needed response to bullying and high suicide rates, indicating clear approval of adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support the model policies guidance" and gives a reason favoring adoption: "every student deserves a safe and inclusive learning environment." This is a clear endorsement of the regulation as proposed.


Concerned Educator and Virginia Resident- Please Oppose

The commenter explicitly says "Please Oppose" and repeatedly argues the policy is "harmful" to transgender children, families, staff, and other students. They object to pronoun requirements, bathroom/locker room access, and transgender participation in sports, indicating they want the regulation rejected rather than adopted.


Model Policy for treatment of Transgender Students in Public Schools

The commenter explicitly says, "Strongly oppose Model Policies for treatment of transgender students." This is a clear rejection of the proposed regulation with no qualifying language suggesting support or modification.


The comment explicitly says "Strongly oppose!!" and repeats "Strongly oppose!!" with no qualifying language. This is a clear rejection of the proposed regulation.


Support for transgender students in VA Public schools

The commenter explicitly urges adoption of protections for transgender students, saying the same care "needs to be made for all of our students" and asking to "ensure that our young people see that value being lived out" in schools. They specifically support "safe access to restrooms that match their identity," anti-bullying measures, and counseling services.


The commenter says they are "deeply troubled" by the department "promoting gender confusion" and states that if the policies are implemented they will send their children to private schools. This indicates clear opposition to adopting the regulation as written.


Opposition to Proposed Transgender Education Policy

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose this proposed Transgender Education policy" and repeatedly argues against adoption, calling it "scientifically baseless" and "social propaganda." They also object to restroom access, pronoun use, and the policy being "force fed to every student," which indicates clear opposition rather than a request for changes.


The commenter explicitly says, "I fully support this guidance," which directly endorses adoption of the regulation. The additional statement that it is "important to protect our most vulnerable children" reinforces approval of the policy's purpose.


The commenter explicitly says, "I am in full support of the guidance." They further endorse the policy goal by arguing that schools should "be a place of support" for transgender youth.


Don't teach our children that they are a mistake

The commenter explicitly says, "This sort of content does not belong in our schools" and argues it will "HARM their self worth," indicating opposition to adopting the policy. They also say it will "create confusion" and should not be taught to children, which is a clear rejection of the regulation.


Transgender policy not good for children

The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, saying "We do not need this law" and arguing it is "anti-science" and "child abuse." They also oppose the underlying approach to transgender students, insisting parents should have "the ultimate authority" and criticizing encouragement of transgender identity.


The commenter explicitly says "Fully Support the Transgender Student Policies" and states that "The Model Policies are very important and needed." They argue schools "must have a uniform understanding on how to treat and support Transgender students," which clearly endorses adoption of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose this action" and repeats that opposition at the end. They argue that parents should be informed and that the policy is "wrong and very detrimental" to children and families, indicating rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support the guidance" and "I fully support the policies as outlined." They also endorse the purpose of the regulation, calling it "an important step" to ensure transgender students are treated equally and protected from discrimination.


The commenter explicitly titles the submission "Support" and states, "Protect and support transgender students." They also emphasize that "all students" should feel safe in school, which aligns with adopting the policy.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support the guidance document" and urges officials to "Help these kids get the support they need to flourish." The comment argues the policy is needed to protect trans youth from "depression, anxiety, bullying, and suicide," indicating clear approval of adoption.


The comment explicitly says "SUPPORT!!" and endorses the policy's underlying purpose by stating, "Protect our children; they know themselves best." This indicates approval of the regulation rather than opposition or neutrality.


The comment explicitly says, "All humans are created equal and deserve to be treated as equals," which aligns with the regulation’s goal of nondiscrimination and supportive treatment of transgender students. The title, "Protect LGBTQ Youth," also indicates approval of the policy’s intent.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support these guidelines" and frames them as necessary to protect transgender youth. They also endorse the policies as a response to bullying and prejudice in schools.


The commenter explicitly urges approval of the policy, saying "Protect trans children and families" and "Be a leader, Virginia." The body advocates for the regulation's underlying goals of safety, empathy, and protection for transgender children.


Support! This policy will save lives. All students deserve a safe supportive classroom.

The comment explicitly says "Support!" and endorses the policy as life-saving: "This policy will save lives." It also states that "All students deserve a safe supportive classroom," which clearly favors adoption of the regulation.


My Taxes Shouldn't Go To Institutionalizing Psychological and Sexual Abuse - Policies are twisted.

The commenter explicitly condemns the policies as "psychological abuse" and "sexual abuse against minors," calling them "pedophile proposals." This is a clear rejection of the regulation and an argument against adoption.


The commenter explicitly states "full, adament, and urgent support for these model policies" and argues they are "of utmost importance" and "a necessity." The body consistently endorses the policies as protective and inclusive for transgender youth and all children.


The commenter explicitly asks, "Please do not place any special favors" and rejects the policy as "discrimination" claims, indicating opposition to the transgender student guidance. They also state that "there is only two genders and that needs to be the way it stays," which directly opposes the regulation's purpose.


The commenter explicitly says, "Strongly support these model policies," which directly endorses adoption. The additional statement, "We need to support and love all our children," reinforces approval of the regulation's purpose.


Help kids who are confused - don't allow them to mutilate themselves, e.g. cut off penis or breasts

The commenter explicitly argues to "not give them puberty blockers" and to not "allow them to mutilate their bodies," which rejects the regulation’s support for transgender students and related best practices. The title and body frame the policy as harmful to "kids who are confused," indicating opposition rather than a request for modification in support of the rule.


The commenter repeatedly objects to the policy language, calling it "completely subjective," "scary and unacceptable," and "an over-reaching government." They explicitly argue against bathroom access provisions and CPS reporting guidance, asking whether schools will "report and government remove or jail parents" and stating the policy will be "exploited."


The commenter explicitly says "strongly support" and describes the policies as "respectful," something that "will save lives," and "common sense." They also endorse allowing students to use chosen names, dress appropriately, and have privacy, which aligns with adopting the regulation.


Protect our daughters' right to privacy! #METOO Strongly oppose this dangerous legislation!

The commenter explicitly says "I STRONGLY OPPOSE this legislation" and repeatedly urges officials to "re-think your proposed legislation." The body argues the policy is "dangerous," "unacceptable," and would harm girls' privacy and safety in bathrooms and locker rooms.


The commenter explicitly states, "I am writing in support of the guidance." This is a clear endorsement of adopting the regulation as proposed.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose" and asks the agency not to adopt policies that would "further confuse" children. They argue the policies are "neither based on reality, nor scientifically proven," which indicates rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose" and "I do not approve of your proposed guidelines." They object that the policies lack "exceptions or accommodations" for religious or biological objections and describe them as "radical theories" that "indoctrinate our school children."


Protect our children.  Believe the science.  Stop the insanity.

The commenter says, "I highly object" and asks, "Please do not support this ongoing attack," which clearly rejects the proposed policies. The title and body frame the regulation as harmful, indicating opposition rather than a request for changes.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support this guidance document" and endorses it because "All students in the Commonwealth deserve an education system that is welcoming and affirming of their gender identity." This is a clear request for adoption of the regulation as proposed.


The commenter explicitly titles the submission "Strongly Oppose" and says the policy would be "harmful" and "How tragic" to empower schools to teach it. The reference to "1+1=5" is a clear rejection of the transgender student policies as invalid or inappropriate.


The commenter explicitly says, "Strongly oppose this new legislation!" which directly states opposition to the proposed policies. The title, "Transgender indoctrination," reinforces a negative view of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose this action," which directly rejects the proposed regulation. The phrase "Please return to sanity!" reinforces that they want the policy not to be adopted.


Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity MUST be taught in Sex Ed

The commenter explicitly argues that sexual orientation and gender identity "MUST be taught" and says every child needs to be told that being trans is "normal, acceptable, and scientifically valid." This supports the regulation’s transgender-student framework and asks for even stronger inclusion in sex education rather than rejection or weakening.


The commenter explicitly says "Fully Support" and repeatedly argues for adopting the protections, stating that "Trans students deserve protection" and that the policies "will only benefit them and their classmates." The comment rejects opposition as "transphobic" and frames the regulation as creating a safer school environment.


The commenter explicitly says, "It should absolutely be opposed," and the title also states "Oppose this policy." They argue the policy will "foment more confusion" and harm young people, indicating clear rejection of adoption.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Oppose!" and repeatedly urges VDOE "to not allow this." They argue the policies should be rejected because they conflict with religious beliefs and should not be taught in schools.


Support the well-being of trans youth in schools

The commenter explicitly says, "I fully support this guidance" and frames it as necessary to "promote the health and well-being of trans youth." They also endorse protections against harassment and bullying, indicating approval of the regulation as written or in principle.


The comment explicitly rejects the regulation with "Absolutely NO." The title "Destroying the children" conveys strong opposition to the proposed transgender student policies.


Virginia Department of Education Transgender policies

The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, saying it "forces everyone to comply" and that it is "definitely NOT the job of the DOE" to do so. The comment argues the policies are harmful and should not be implemented, citing fears of abuse, false accusations, and hostility.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY OPPOSE TRANSGENDER SCHOOL POLICY," which directly rejects the regulation. The additional statement, "Biblically there are only male & female. that's it!" reinforces opposition on religious grounds.


The commenter explicitly says "Support Trans youth in public scools!" and adds "Trans youth need public school support!" This clearly endorses the proposed policies and the support they provide to transgender students.


The comment explicitly rejects the policy’s subject matter with the statement "GET TRANNIES OUT OF OUR SCHOOLS," indicating opposition to transgender-inclusive school policies. It provides no policy-specific support or suggested revisions, only a demand to remove transgender students from schools.


The commenter explicitly says, "I am in strong support of the model policy for transgender students" and praises it as "fair and legal and right." This clearly endorses adoption of the regulation as written.


The commenter explicitly says the policy is "Vehemently opposed" and calls it "diametrically opposed to the US Constitution." They also describe it as "not normal, not healthy" and "shameful," indicating clear rejection of adoption.


Support for transgender youth in VA public schools

The commenter explicitly endorses protections for transgender students, stating that schools should provide "support" and "respect and protect all their students." They reject "discrimination or shame," which aligns with adopting the proposed policies.


The commenter says, "I do not agree about the way this effort is being phrased" and asks to "reconsider and make better accommodations for all," indicating opposition to the proposed policy as written. Although they express support for protections for transgender students, they specifically reject the current approach and advocate separate facilities and different rules for athletics.


The commenter explicitly says they are "vehemently opposed to this policy" and rejects it as "transgender indoctrination" and the "forced acceptance of the LGBT agenda." They also state, "I will not adhere to this policy," which clearly indicates opposition to adoption.


FULLY support trans rights! Every student deserves respect!

The commenter explicitly says "FULLY support trans rights!" and argues that "Every student, including trans students deserve to feel included and welcomed." They also state that "Policies need to adapt and change with the times," which clearly endorses adopting the regulation.


Strongly Oppose. Defend God’s Creation of Male & Female!!!

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose the transgender policies" and repeatedly rejects the proposal as "unbiblical" and contrary to "God’s design." They also state, "The school has no place to teach my children" these messages, indicating clear opposition to adoption of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Opposed" and asks, "Please do not do this to our children," indicating rejection of the proposed policies. They argue the guidelines are "against science, morality" and call them "deceit," which shows clear opposition rather than a request for modification.


The commenter explicitly says, "Please support this initiative!" and argues that transgender students deserve "the right to a education" and to "feel safe at school." This clearly endorses adoption of the proposed policies.


The commenter explicitly says, "I fully support the Model Policies" and states they are "necessary to protect trans students and advance their well-being." They also endorse the policies as a response to bullying and harassment, indicating clear approval of adoption.


Protect the rights, dignity, and well-being of Trans students in VA schools!

The commenter explicitly says, "I support all efforts to do so wholeheartedly," and frames the policy as necessary to protect "the rights, dignity, and well-being of Trans students." The comment argues for stronger support for trans students in schools rather than opposing the regulation.


Strongly oppose this policy for our children and youth

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose this dangerous policy" and asks officials to "do not enact this policy." They argue it is harmful, creates an "unsafe environment," and infringes on "family and parental guardianship," all of which indicate clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says that guidelines preventing "bullying, harassment, and discrimination make sense and should absolutely be supported," indicating overall approval of the regulation. Although they raise several concerns about parental notification, restroom access, and sports fairness, these are framed as requests for caution or revision rather than rejection of the policy outright.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly disagree with this," which clearly rejects the proposed policies. The biblical quotation about "male and female" is used as the basis for opposing the regulation rather than supporting it.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose this" and objects to the issue being "strictly handled by the educational systems," indicating rejection of the proposed policy. Although they support inclusion in principle, they argue against the restroom/locker room provisions by warning it "opens the door for cases of abuse and rape," which shows opposition to the regulation as written.


The commenter explicitly says "Oppose completely!" and "Please do not allow this!" which clearly rejects the proposed policies. They argue that "shared bathrooms and locker rooms leaves children so vulnerable to predators" and that the regulation cannot protect anyone, indicating opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, saying "I say absolutely not" and arguing that public schools should not be used "as a platform to push these choices." They frame the proposal as unfair to other children and say it would not protect "the rights and safety of every child."


The commenter explicitly says "We strongly oppose" the guidance document and repeatedly urges officials to "Do not dictate to our families what to believe" and "Stop trying to weaken and destroy the nuclear family." These statements clearly reject adoption of the policy and frame it as contrary to their values.


The commenter explicitly says "Unequivocally OPPOSE" and calls the policy "ABSOLUTELY UNACCEPTABLE." They argue it "goes AGAINST the nuclear family" and reject the idea that children can be transgender or make such decisions, indicating clear opposition to adoption of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I am strongly opposed to this," which directly rejects the proposed policies. They also argue the policies are "far from neutral" and do not have "EVERY child’s safety in mind," reinforcing opposition rather than support or a neutral inquiry.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose this" and repeatedly argues against implementation, saying it would be "detrimental to the safety of our children" and that "more harm will come than good." The suggestion to "Add a third bathroom" indicates they prefer an alternative to the proposed policy rather than adoption as written.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support all measures to ensure the protection of transgender children in Virginia schools" and urges, "Please do not subject vulnerable children" to harm. The comment advocates adoption of the policies as necessary protections and calls for action rather than inaction.


The commenter explicitly states "Strongly oppose," which clearly indicates rejection of the proposed regulation. No additional context suggests any nuance or support for modifications.


Full support of our students and these proposed policies

The commenter explicitly says, "I am fully in support of updating our school policies to those proposed." They also argue that schools should "show respect for all students," indicating approval of the regulation rather than opposition or neutrality.


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


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Support" and asks to "support them and support this bill," indicating clear approval of the regulation. The statement that trans students have a right to a "safe and supportive learning environment" aligns with adopting the policy.


Fully support Transgender Rights and equality

The commenter explicitly says, "I fully support Transgender rights and equality for all students in VA schools!" This is a clear endorsement of the proposed policies and the protections they provide.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly support" and adds "Trans rights are human rights," which clearly endorses the regulation’s purpose and protections for transgender students. There is no indication of opposition or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly says "Fully support!" and "I support the right of all individuals" as well as "I support transgender individuals," which clearly endorses the regulation. The comment frames the policy as necessary for understanding and protecting rights rather than opposing any part of it.


The commenter explicitly says the policy "goes against everything we stand for" and cites scripture to argue against it. This is a clear rejection of the proposed transgender student policies rather than a request for changes.


The commenter explicitly says "strongly oppose this!" and objects to key parts of the policy, including that "the parent doesn’t have to be informed" and concerns about bathroom access. They argue the policy "doesn’t make our kids safe," indicating rejection of the regulation rather than support or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly says "I strongly oppose these model" policies and repeatedly argues they should not be adopted, calling them a "radical violation" and "beyond offensive." The comment objects to pronoun requirements, gender identity support in schools, and reporting parents to CPS, all framed as reasons to reject the regulation.


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


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support trans rights" and urges Virginia to "set an example for the country" by supporting trans youth. This is a clear endorsement of the proposed policies and their underlying goals.


The commenter explicitly says they "will not support any such teachings in the public school setting" and warns that if the measures are passed they will seek education elsewhere. The comment repeatedly describes the policy as "wrong," "sin," and "a lie," indicating clear opposition to adoption.


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


Strongly oppose. It strips parental rights & religious freedoms; the very fabric of this nation.

The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose" and repeatedly states "I strongly oppose this policy being recommended." The body argues the policy "violates parental rights and religious freedoms," is "totally unworkable," and should not be adopted.


fully support! trans rights are human rights!

The commenter explicitly says, "I fully support" the policy and gives a reason favoring protection of trans students: "trans students deserve to feel safe and accepted." This is a clear endorsement of adoption.


The commenter calls the policy a "dramatic, Extreme policy" and says it is "unbelievable," indicating clear disapproval. They argue for alternatives like "counseling" and "stronger influence on anti-bullying culture" instead of the proposed guidance, and warn it could "open dangerous doors for ALL of our children."


Why these transgender policies should be denied

The commenter explicitly says the policies "should be denied" and states they "wouldn't want" these policies adopted. They also argue the policies are "absolutely appalling" and not protective of children, indicating clear opposition to the regulation.


Transgenderism and homosexuality are abominations of God and have no place in our schools

The commenter explicitly says transgender identity and homosexuality "have no place in our schools," which directly rejects the proposed policies supporting transgender students. The language is condemnatory and urges the reader to follow a Bible instead of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose what the state is trying to push into our school systems," which clearly rejects the regulation. "Let our kids be kids" reinforces opposition to the policy's inclusion of transgender-related guidance in schools.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose" and argues the policy "Will only create greater confusion" and "Undermines the parental role!" These phrases clearly reject the proposed regulation and express a desire not to adopt it.


The commenter explicitly states "Totally support," which directly endorses adoption of the proposed policies. There is no qualifying language or criticism suggesting opposition or neutrality.


Strongly oppose. It strips parental rights & religious freedoms.

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose this policy being recommended," which directly indicates opposition to adoption. They also argue it "violates parental rights, student rights, religious freedoms," reinforcing that they want the policy rejected.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose this model policy" and repeatedly argues it is "very bad policy and very dangerous." They also call for an alternative approach, saying students should receive counseling instead, which indicates rejection of the proposed regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I fully support this" and asks, "Please make this regulation a reality." They also praise the policy’s purpose of fostering "understanding and acceptance" for trans students.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose this bill" and argues against key provisions, especially keeping information from parents and allowing bathroom access based on gender identity. They ask, "Is this really a better solution?" and suggest an alternative like "making a unisex bathroom," indicating rejection of the regulation as written.


The commenter says, "I strongly disagree with this policy for our school system" and calls it "unnecessary and pointless." They also prefer it be "left to the individual schools," indicating opposition to adopting the statewide model policy as written.


The commenter explicitly calls the proposal "ridiculous," "lunacy," and says it is "an anti-Christ philosophy I will not subscribe" to. They also argue against protections for transgender students and object to school involvement, saying it risks "losing our ability to parent our children."


These model policies are a violation of my religion

The commenter explicitly says the model policies "are a violation of my religion" and states they "stand in direct contrast" to what they view as biology, science, and "the word of God." This is a clear rejection of the proposed policies rather than support or a neutral inquiry.


The commenter explicitly says, "I fully support the adoption of policies" and specifies that they "protect the safety and well-being of transgender students." This is a clear endorsement of the regulation as proposed.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Support" and states that "Trans students deserve protection at school." They further endorse a safe educational environment for trans students, which clearly supports adoption of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly titles the remark "Strongly Oppose" and cites Genesis 5:2 to argue a binary sex view, which is being used to reject the transgender student policies. There is no indication of support or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Support!" and endorses the policy by stating "Trans rights are human rights" and that "LGBTQ+ students deserve to feel safe and respected in schools." This is a clear affirmative position in favor of adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose this legislation" and "DO NOT enact this law," making their position clear. They argue it would "trample upon the rights" of other students and object to bathroom/locker room access for transgender students, indicating opposition to the regulation as written.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose" and argues the policy "does not belong in the schools educational learning." They also object on religious grounds, saying it "goes against mine and my family’s religion" and should be handled "at home."


The commenter explicitly labels the submission "Oppose" and argues against the policy as "antithetical to the principles of free speech" and a "social experiment." They also reject the underlying transgender guidance by referring to it as forcing language that "subvert[s] obvious biological reality."


The commenter explicitly states "In support" and repeats "In support," indicating clear approval of the proposed regulation. There is no qualifying language or criticism suggesting otherwise.


The commenter explicitly says, "Do not adopt this guidance" and "Throw the whole thing out," which clearly rejects the regulation. The rest of the comment argues against transgender accommodations and calls the guidance an attempt to "normalize the abnormal," reinforcing opposition.


For the good of ALL our children, I oppose

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose this legislation" and repeats that they "strongly oppose this legislation" at the end. They argue it is "rooted in false, pseudo science" and object to state involvement, free speech concerns, and religious conviction concerns, all indicating rejection of the regulation.


strongly support, let’s do even more for trans students

The commenter explicitly says "strongly support" and adds "let’s do even more for trans students," which clearly endorses adoption and expansion of the policy. There is no opposing language or ambiguity.


The commenter explicitly labels the submission "Strongly Oppose" and rejects the policy's premise by asserting a strict sex binary: "XX chromosome equals female. XY chromosome equals male. Binary." The religious framing reinforces opposition to transgender-inclusive guidance rather than support for adoption.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Support" and argues that transgender students "absolutely need protection in schools" and should "participate in school life as fully as other students." This clearly endorses adopting the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly support," which directly states approval of the regulation. The follow-up "It's the 21st century" reinforces a favorable, modernizing view rather than any objection.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy by stating, "Goes against our religion." This indicates opposition to adopting the transgender student model policies on religious grounds.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose" and argues that "there are two sexes, male and female," rejecting the policy's transgender framework. The statement that "Any other information should be left for parents to teach" indicates opposition to the regulation's school guidance.


Oppose for logical reasons; better legislation required

The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose this measure," which directly states opposition to adoption. They also argue that the Department of Education needs "much different legislation," indicating they want this proposal rejected or substantially revised.


The commenter explicitly says "Passing this law should be a no brainer" and argues that trans students "should have the same liberties and chances in life," which clearly endorses adoption of the regulation. The title "Urgently Support" reinforces the pro-regulation position.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY OPPOSE" and states that the policy "is a violation of parental rights and religious freedoms," indicating clear rejection of the regulation. There is no language suggesting support or neutrality.


Respect for individuals does not entail rejection of common sense, reason, or biology

The commenter explicitly says, "I do not support a transgender policy" and argues against "redefining genders" and "transgender ideas" in schools. They also say it is "not the business of the state or school system" to promote these policies, indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I STRONGLY OPPOSE" and repeats "I Strongly Oppose!!". The phrase "This is DEMONIC!!" indicates clear rejection of the proposed policies.


The commenter explicitly states "Strongly support," which clearly indicates approval of the proposed regulation. No contrary language or qualifications are present.


The commenter explicitly says "Completely oppose" and states the policy "goes against God’s word." Although they add that children should be respectful, the overall message rejects the regulation and argues against its premise of inclusion for transgender students.


The commenter explicitly says, "I fully support the transgender guidance," which directly endorses adoption of the regulation. The follow-up sentence, "Education is the only way to build understanding and remove fear," reinforces a positive view of the policy's purpose.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Oppose" and argues the policy is "a dangerous precedent." They object to "allow students all access to any bathroom/locker room" and ask to "protect the majority," indicating rejection of the regulation as written.


The commenter explicitly says, "I fully support the legislation" and frames it as necessary to "promote the health and well-being of trans youth." They also state that these children "deserve our protection and support," indicating clear approval of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly rejects the proposal, saying "Do not plague the school with confusing policies" and "Drop the pronoun changes, locker room arrangements, etc." They argue the policies are "greatly hurting" children and should be handled by parents outside the school system.


The commenter explicitly says "I say yes" and expresses approval by wishing "I had had this when I was a young student." This indicates support for adopting the policy, even though no detailed arguments are provided.


The commenter explicitly says, "I fully support this" and asks, "Please protect LGBT+ kids." This is a clear endorsement of the proposed policies and their protective intent.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Oppose" and calls the policy "Totally unacceptable." They argue schools should not be "pushing ideology" and say it undermines "family backgrounds" and "religious values," indicating rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose this" and "do not want this to pass," which clearly indicates rejection of the regulation. The title "STRONGLY OPPOSE!" reinforces the same position.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly OPPOSE" and asks to "Please OPPOSE these destructive proposals." They argue the policies would "hurt our children" and "egregiously violate parents' rights," indicating clear rejection of the regulation.


strongly support! TRANS RIGHTS ARE HUMAN RIGHTS

The commenter explicitly says "strongly support!" and "I fully support this document," indicating clear approval of the regulation. They also frame it as helping "support trans students," which aligns with adoption of the policy.


The commenter strongly endorses protecting transgender and LGBTQ+ students, saying there is "not a debate" and urging readers to "support all children" and "prove them wrong." The comment clearly favors the regulation’s goals of inclusion, respect, and safety for trans students.


This shouldn’t even be a debate. Obvious support.

The commenter explicitly says "Obvious support" and argues that "All students should feel respected, safe, and supported at school, and that includes trans students." They also criticize opposition to protections for trans students, indicating clear approval of the regulation's purpose.


The commenter explicitly says they "strongly oppose" and "100% strongly oppose" the Model Policies. They argue the policies will cause "further exclusion & division," create "greater confusion," and put "other kids at risk," all of which indicate rejection of adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support this set of guidelines because they protect children," and argues that schools should protect "ALL students regardless of their identity." The comment endorses the regulation as a safeguard for transgender children and rejects religious objections to it.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support policies" and frames them as helping "trans and all students to thrive," which clearly endorses adoption of the regulation. There is no opposing language or ambiguity.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY SUPPORT" and urges "Protecting trans kids". The rest of the comment reinforces approval of the policy by opposing religious interference and stating that opposing it is unconstitutional.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY APPROVE" and argues that schools need to be rid of "transphobic and hateful language." They also support teacher awareness and correct language, which aligns with adopting the proposed transgender student policies.


The commenter explicitly says, "Please reject any policies that promote or push transgender issues within public schools," which is a clear request to reject the regulation. They also argue the issue should be left to parents due to "Freedom of Religion," indicating opposition to adoption as written.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support this measure" and endorses "allowing transgender students to safely fully express their gender identity." The comment frames the policy as protecting "respect and privacy" and "basic rights," indicating clear approval of adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I STRONGLY OPPOSE" the policy and argues it will "confuse and bring mental and emotional harm to children." The rest of the comment reinforces rejection of the transgender guidance as harmful and inappropriate for schools.


The commenter explicitly says, "I am strongly opposed to the proposed transgender policy" and repeatedly urges, "Please do not do this." They argue the policy is "completely unacceptable" and "reckless disregard for the children," indicating clear opposition to adoption.


if you don't support this you're a loser!! Protect and support trans kids!!!

The commenter explicitly endorses the policy, saying "This policy is so so so important for transgender kids" and "Protect and support trans kids!!!" They also argue that "Trans rights are humans rights" and criticize those who oppose it, indicating clear support for adoption.


The commenter explicitly says "I Oppose" and gives a reason against the policy: "children of different sexes should not be in the same bathroom or shower rooms." This indicates opposition to the regulation’s guidance on transgender students and facility access.


The commenter explicitly says, "I STRONGLY urge opposition to this bill" and repeatedly argues that it "will not achieve" support for transgender students. The comment frames the policy as coercive and harmful, claiming it "forces" affirmation and "tramples on the civil rights" of dissenters.


STRONGLY SUPPORT! -An actual student of Biology, the Classics, and Common Sense

The commenter explicitly opens with "STRONGLY SUPPORT!" and repeatedly argues that "This guidance document is essential to the safety of our students." They also endorse protecting transgender and gender-nonconforming students and criticize those who oppose the policy.


The commenter argues against the policy by questioning whether counselors should present “other options,” criticizing decisions made “without parent knowledge,” and implying the guidance enables harmful or inappropriate outcomes. The examples about pronouns, bathrooms, and sex-specific classes are framed sarcastically to suggest the regulation creates problems and should not be adopted as written.


The commenter explicitly gives "Strong and Enthusiastic Support" and says the policy "would be a huge step towards educational equity." They also state that students deserve to feel "safe and supported," indicating clear approval of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I of course fully support any policy for giving my child a safe and supportive education" and repeatedly endorses the policies as ways to "respect and support these children." The comment argues the policies are needed for safety, mental health, and protection from bullying, which clearly indicates support for adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "Please OPPOSE this!" and repeats, "Please oppose this statewide transgender school policy." This is a clear request to reject the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "Support transgender kids" and urges that they be treated "with dignity," which clearly endorses the regulation’s purpose. There is no language opposing or questioning the policy.


The commenter explicitly says, "I disapprove of this radical push" and describes the policy as a "radical movement" against what they believe is divinely intended. This is a clear rejection of the proposed transgender student policies rather than support or a neutral inquiry.


The commenter explicitly endorses the policy with statements like "Support trans kids!" and "Protect our trans children!" They argue the regulation should protect transgender students' rights and safety at school, and criticize opposition to such protections.


The commenter explicitly says "I STRONGLY support a change in policy" and argues that transgender people "should NOT be discriminated against." They also endorse the need for "greater education" on gender and sexuality issues, indicating approval of the regulation's purpose.


The commenter explicitly says "Oppose" and "Adamantly oppose," indicating clear rejection of the regulation. They also object to it as an "Undue burden on teachers" and say it is "stripping parental rights," while urging the money be used for "teachers raises" instead.


SUPPORT Model Policy for the Treatment of Transgender Students in Virginia’s Public Schools.

The commenter explicitly titles the submission "SUPPORT Model Policy" and repeatedly endorses it, saying they "cannot imagine" transgender people being forced to live otherwise and hope officials will "implement the policy". They also frame it as offering "respect to ALL students" and call opponents "misguided," indicating clear approval of adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I , 100% support this" and endorses the idea that "everyone should be able to express their sexuality without feeling judged, or unsafe." This is a clear approval of the proposed policies.


The commenter explicitly labels the submission "Oppose" and argues against the policy by saying girls and boys should use bathrooms and locker rooms only with their own biological sex. The statement that allowing transgender students access is "sexual abuse" shows clear rejection of the regulation.


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

The commenter explicitly says they "fully support this comprehensive policy as written" and adds that "Nothing should be removed." They also endorse the policy's purpose of protecting transgender students and creating equitable school environments.


The commenter explicitly says "SUPPORT" and urges to "PROTECT TRANS KIDS," which clearly endorses the regulation’s purpose. The phrase "deserve all the love and care" indicates affirmative support rather than criticism or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy with "NO! Absolutely no" and says "This policy has no place in schools." They argue it would "cancel[] the rights" of other students and object to transgender accommodations such as locker room access and confidentiality, indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says "I FULLY SUPPORT" and adds that LGBTQ+ people "should not be treated in any way that is unfair," which clearly endorses the regulation's protective intent. There is no indication of opposition or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly says, "I wholeheartedly support the comprehensive set of policies" and frames them as necessary to "protect transgender and nonbinary students from bullying." They also state that "every student deserves an inclusive learning environment," indicating clear approval of adoption.


The comment explicitly says "STRONGLY DISAPPROVE," which clearly indicates opposition to the proposed policies. No supporting language or request for modification is provided.


The commenter explicitly says, "I STRONGLY support this policy," which directly endorses adoption. The statement that "Trans rights are human rights" reinforces approval of the transgender student policies.


Does Not Protect Children From Predators

The commenter clearly rejects the policy, arguing that it would let "a biological male" enter "the girls’ bathrooms and locker rooms" and asking "See a problem here?" This frames the regulation as dangerous and undeserving of adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I am opposed to this" and repeatedly argues against the policy, saying it would "set our children up for failure" and "promot[e] more confusion." The comment also rejects the underlying premise of transgender inclusion, indicating opposition to adoption of the regulation.


The title, "Free and equal education free from discrimination," clearly echoes the regulation’s goals of nondiscrimination and supportive treatment for transgender students. With no contrary language in the body, the comment appears to endorse the policy’s purpose.


The comment explicitly endorses the policy area with the statement "TRANS RIGHTS ARE HUMAN RIGHTS!!!" and uses emphatic repetition, indicating approval of protections for transgender students. It does not raise objections or request weakening of the regulation.


Oppose - follow what the General Assembly prescibed and respect privacy and dignity of all students

The commenter explicitly labels the submission "Oppose" and repeatedly argues the policies "go far beyond what the general assembly has prescribed." They also say the regulations "infringe the First Amendment rights of parents" and should not accommodate gender transitions, indicating clear rejection of the proposed guidance.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support this policy" and argues it will "facilitate the legal right of transgender children to an education free from discrimination." The comment endorses the regulation as a means of protecting transgender students' rights.


Support for transgender student policy document

The commenter explicitly says they "strong support" the proposed guidance document and praises its effects, stating it would "promote an inclusive and respectful environment" and protect students from "harassment and bullying." They also thank VDOE for developing a "well researched and thoughtful policy document," indicating approval rather than criticism or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose this," and argues the VDOE has "gone far beyond the path the General Assembly prescribed." They also say the policies "infringe the First Amendment rights of parents," indicating rejection of the regulation rather than support or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly titles the submission "Oppose HB145 and SB 161" and argues the VDOE has "gone far beyond" what the General Assembly intended. They say the policies "infringe the First Amendment rights of parents" and should not accommodate "gender transitions," indicating clear rejection of the regulation.


Full support for policy that protects and supports transgender and gender noncomforming students

The commenter explicitly says, "I fully support policy" and thanks the agency for "policy that would protect students who are transgender and gender nonconforming." They also state it would "provide protection for students of all genders so that they can learn safely," indicating clear approval of adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do not approve of the proposed guidelines" and calls them "insane," indicating clear opposition to adoption. They also argue the policy would harm female students, misguide children, and take away parents' rights, all of which support a rejecting stance.


The commenter explicitly says they have reviewed the draft policy and asks that it be strengthened by requiring "adequate numbers of single-person bath, shower and locker areas" for privacy. Although they criticize "positive discrimination," the overall request is to adopt the policy with added privacy protections rather than reject it.


Fully support all students, including transgender students

The commenter explicitly says, "I 100% support the guidance" and praises it as "safe and supportive for all." They also state it is "critical for all students in Virginia to be treated with respect," indicating clear approval of adoption.


Parent and RN, strongly oppose this agenda

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose the policies being proposed," which directly rejects adoption. They also argue the policies "infringe[] upon a parent's rights" and conflict with "protecting the bodily privacy and dignity of students," indicating substantive opposition rather than a request for changes.


Protect Everyone; Remember You are Government and Not an Advocacy Group

The commenter repeatedly argues the draft "needs to be totally overhauled," calls it "an advocacy piece for one side," and says it is "premature to mandate" school boards adopt policies consistent with it. They also object to privacy, bathroom, pronoun, and parental-information provisions, indicating opposition to adoption as written.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, calling it "insanity" and saying it should not be "implemented in Virginia's schools." The reference to "lots of class action suits" further signals opposition rather than support or neutral input.


The commenter explicitly says "Support" and states "I strongly am in support of it." They also give a positive reason, saying the measure "protects, supports, and student identities."


The commenter explicitly rejects school privacy protections and urges officials to "Stand up to these awful schools and help parents keep their rights!" The comment frames the policy as improperly withholding information from parents and asks the regulation's supporters to oppose it.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose this proposal" and repeatedly argues against school authority over transgender policies. They object to "indoctrinate children without the parent's consent," oppose restroom/locker room access, and reject the policy as undermining Christian beliefs and parental rights.


The commenter rejects the policy and urges people to avoid public schools, saying "our government wants to tell us and the children what gender they are" and advising parents to "get them out" and teachers to "find another job." This is a clear opposition to the transgender student guidance.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support transgender students and teachers" and asks, "Please protect them," which clearly endorses the proposed policies. The comment frames the regulation as necessary protection from "ignorance and malice," indicating approval rather than criticism.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do not agree with the transgender policy," which directly rejects the regulation. They also argue it "places our children in dangerous situations" and expresses disapproval of the policy's impact on children and schools.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose!" and adds "This is wrong!" indicating clear rejection of the proposed regulation. There is no language suggesting support or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support 100%." They also urge that "We need to make our schools safe" and describe the policy as necessary to protect transgender students from bullying and neglect.


Excellent Document - Some Points Need Minor Clarifications

The commenter explicitly says the document is "well-written and comprehensive" and hopes it will "support school divisions" in policies that "will protect transgender students." Their suggestions are framed as requests for clarification and expansion, not rejection, and they close with "Thank you for this excellent work."


opposed to model policies for the treatment of transgender students

The commenter explicitly says, "I do not approve of the proposed guidelines" and repeatedly argues against adoption, calling the policy unsafe, outside the school's role, and a threat to parental rights and religious beliefs. They also object to restroom/locker access and claim the policy conflicts with "fundamental beliefs of chromosomal makeup."


So that's the science, the hard data. - NO

The commenter explicitly says "NO" in the title and repeatedly argues against the policy, stating it would "set children... up for confusion" and that schools should be about "education. Not whose gender is what." Although they mention treating everyone "fairly, equally, and with love and compassion," the overall message is that the proposed transgender student policies should not be adopted.


The commenter explicitly endorses the policy, saying it "can improve and even save lives" and that the regulations can "prevent bullying, violence, depression, and suicide." The comment argues in favor of transgender-inclusive guidance and against forcing trans children to use the "wrong bathroom," indicating clear support for adoption.


No way under God's grace this could happen

The commenter explicitly says "Anyone should totally disapprove of this" and describes the policy as a "radical push" to "eliminate differences between females and males." This is a clear rejection of the proposed transgender student policies.


The commenter explicitly says "Anyone should totally disapprove of this" and describes the policy as a "radical push" that should not happen. The language rejects the regulation and frames it as harmful "brainwashing."


The commenter explicitly states, "I support the Model Policy." They further reinforce approval by saying, "It is our moral imperative," which indicates clear endorsement of adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support the guidance" and gives a positive reason that it "helps provide direction" in a way that is "safe and supportive for all." This is a clear endorsement of adopting the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I wholeheartedly support this policy!" which directly endorses adoption of the regulation. There is no qualifying language or criticism.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support the model policy because it is what is right." They also argue that public schools should "support ALL of the public" and criticize opposition to the policy, indicating clear approval of adoption.


Model policies disregard role of parents

The commenter explicitly says the "model regulations infringe" parents' rights and argues schools should not accommodate transgender students in intimate spaces. Phrases like "No child should be forced to share showers, locker rooms, hotel rooms" and criticism of "encouraging... irreversible 'gender transitions'" show clear opposition to adoption of the policy.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose!" and rejects the policy's premise by stating "There are only 2 genders" and calling the policy "madness." This is a clear call against adopting the regulation.


I support the proposed policies for treatment of transgender students in public schools

The commenter explicitly states, "I support the proposed model policies for treatment of transgender students in public schools." This is a direct endorsement of the regulation with no qualifications or objections.


Concern for the Virginia Transgender School policy

The commenter says the policy is "a concern" because "parents would be intentionally withheld information" important to a child's wellbeing. That indicates opposition to the policy as written, specifically on parental notification and transparency grounds.


The commenter uses dismissive language — "Y’all have completely lost your minds" — and criticizes the policy by questioning "your core values," indicating rejection of the transgender student policies. No language suggests support or a neutral request for information.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support this policy fully," which directly endorses adoption. They also add approving language like "This can help save lives!" and affirm that "LGBTQ+ people exist," reinforcing support for the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support this policy!!" and "I hugely support this policy!" They also endorse the underlying purpose by stating that transgender students "are entitled to a fair education and treatment."


No - respect parents rights to teach their children morals - don't confuse impressionable kids

The commenter explicitly says, "You should not disregard the role of parents in public education" and argues that schools should not "be preaching to them" this guidance. The title "No" and the claim that children are "too impressionable" indicate opposition to adopting the transgender student policies.


The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose this policy," which directly states their position against adoption. The reason given, "it confuses children," reinforces that they want the policy rejected.


The comment explicitly endorses the policy with the title "Support ALL students. Support ALL people." and offers a general principle of inclusion: "Treat others the way you would like others to treat you!" This indicates approval of the regulation rather than criticism or neutrality.


I do not support VDOE Proposed New Policies

The commenter explicitly says, "I do not support Virginia Department of Education’s proposed new LGBTQ policies" and objects to specific provisions they believe the policies would allow. The language criticizes the regulation as harmful, including concerns about "allowing biological men in girls dressing rooms" and punishing teachers for pronouns, indicating clear opposition to adoption.


In Support of our Trans and Non-Binary Students

The commenter explicitly says they are "in support of the proposed Model Policies" and urges officials to "adopt these policies." They also describe the policies as advancing "the rights of our transgender and non-binary students," indicating clear approval of adoption.


I do not agree with the proposed transgender guidelines.

The commenter explicitly says, "I do not agree or approve of the proposed guidelines," which directly rejects adoption of the regulation. They further criticize it as based on "radical theories" and "indoctrination," indicating substantive opposition rather than a request for changes.


The commenter explicitly says, "This Bill should not pass into law," "I greatly oppose," and calls it "an ill conceived bill." They object to multiple provisions, including CPS referrals for parents, tracking "gender fluid" preferences, and opposite-sex locker room use.


The commenter explicitly says, "Do NOT support this nonsense!" and repeatedly argues against the policy, calling it "appalled" and "shame on you." They object to school discussion of transgender identity, privacy from parents, and participation in sports, indicating they want the regulation rejected rather than adopted.


Adamantly oppose the new transgender guidelines

The commenter explicitly says they "adamantly oppose the new transgender guidelines" and "will not" accommodate them. They object to transgender inclusion in schools, especially "a boy being in the girls bathroom or locker room," indicating rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support inclusion for all students," which clearly endorses the regulation’s inclusive treatment of transgender students. No opposing or qualifying language is present.


The commenter explicitly says "Opposed!" and calls the policy "govt. overreach," indicating they do not want it adopted. The request to "Protect parental rights, protect our kids" further signals opposition to the transgender student policies as written.


The comment explicitly says "oppose," which directly indicates the commenter wants the regulation rejected or weakened. No additional context is provided beyond that clear position.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support the Model Policy," which directly endorses adoption. The additional statement, "Our responsibility is to love and accept our students," reinforces approval of the policy's purpose.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support this policy" and "I support this guidance." They also endorse the underlying goals by stating they want schools to be "safe and welcoming for EVERYONE," including "transgender, non-binary and gender expansive students."


The commenter explicitly states, "I support the Model Policy." This is a direct endorsement of the proposed regulation with no qualifications or objections.


Oppose strongly,  parents remove children and homeschool

The commenter says they are "Strongly opposed to any transgender policy" and urges others to "remove their children" from public schools, indicating clear rejection of the regulation. The language also asks officials to "Stay out of Parental responsibility," which directly opposes the policy's adoption.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Oppose Policy on Transgender Students" and repeatedly argues the policy should not be adopted. They cite concerns about pronouns, parental rights, religious freedom, bathroom access, and privacy as reasons to reject the policy.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support VA trans youth!!!" and adds "all equal under the law," which clearly endorses the regulation’s protections for transgender students. There is no language opposing or questioning the policy.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Oppose!" and argues the policy will "cause more harm than good" and should not be imposed. They also object on religious grounds, saying it is "against the beliefs of many people of faith" and "against their conscience."


The commenter explicitly says, "I 1000000% support the safety of transgender students" and argues that "Support for the students identities and safety is absolutely CRUCIAL." The rest of the comment defends the policy’s underlying purpose and criticizes opponents, indicating clear support for adoption.


The commenter explicitly labels the guidance "Oppose" and calls it "garbage," saying it allows schools to make choices "with no parental consent or input" and describing it as a "dangerous precedence." They also object to bathroom access for transgender students and argue the policy would harm public schools.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose this legislation" and repeats, "Because of this I strongly oppose it." They argue it "undermined the very core unit of our society...the family," indicating rejection of the policy rather than support or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support this policy!" and the title "Keep up the good work!" reinforces approval. There is no indication of opposition or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly says "PLEASE VOTE NO" and calls the policy "this transgender thing" and "political... non sense," indicating clear opposition to adopting the regulation. They also urge officials to "Focus" on other priorities instead of this guidance.


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


The commenter explicitly says, "I do not support" and argues the policy is "very dangerous" and should not be introduced to children. They oppose exposing children to gender identity options and say it should not be discussed in elementary school, indicating rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "Please vote NO," which directly opposes adoption of the regulation. They also argue it is "an infringement on people's rights" and object to the lack of a "religious exemption," indicating they want the policy rejected.


The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose this legislation" and urges, "Stop government interference into families." They argue the policy wrongly places school employees between parent and child and undermines parental authority.


The commenter explicitly says, "Strongly oppose this transgender mandate!!!" which directly rejects the proposed policies. The phrase "transgender mandate" indicates opposition to adoption rather than a request for changes.


The commenter explicitly calls the proposal "overreach" and says it is "outrageous," indicating rejection of the regulation. They object to the policy's treatment of gender and to provisions they believe would protect students from parents or guardians, concluding it is "an overreach" of the department's authority.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support the proposed policy" and reinforces approval with "ALL students should feel safe and comfortable at school." This is a clear endorsement of adoption.


The commenter explicitly states, "I oppose this measure in its entirety," which is a clear rejection of the proposed regulation. The title also says "OPPOSE," reinforcing the same position.


The commenter explicitly says they are "Opposed to transgender policies" and argues that "Social engineering has no place in our schools," indicating rejection of the proposed regulation. The call to return to "reading, writing, and mathematics" further shows opposition to adopting these transgender student policies.


The commenter explicitly says they are "Opposed to transgender policies" and argues that "Social engineering has no place in our schools," indicating rejection of the proposed guidance. Their call to "return to the basics" further shows opposition to adopting this regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "Strongly Opposed" and argues there should be "no policy respecting the selfishness of transgenderism." They reject allowing transgender students to use bathrooms aligned with their identity and instead propose a separate bathroom, indicating opposition to the regulation as written.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose the new policies" and repeats "Do not implement these disgusting policies." They argue the policies are "divisive" and object to them as government interference and "brainwashing," indicating clear rejection of adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "Do not do this," which clearly rejects the proposed policies. They also argue that it is "a private matter between parents and their children" and that officials should "not interfere," indicating opposition to adoption of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly titles the submission "Oppose 'transgender' policies" and argues against the regulation, saying it is a "grave disservice" and that society should not "pretend that males are females and that females are males." The comment rejects the underlying premise of the policy and urges treatment focused on "reconcile their feelings with their biology" instead of adoption of the guidance.


The commenter objects to the policy’s privacy/confidentiality provisions, saying it is "deception" to keep parents from knowing when a child "decide[s] to transgender" at school. They argue that schools should not be "concealing something so important" and should inform parents, indicating opposition to the regulation as written.


The commenter explicitly says, "I don’t approve" and argues the policy is "un-Biblical" and "go[es] against what the God said in the Bible," which clearly rejects the regulation. The phrase "shove it down our throats" further indicates opposition rather than a neutral or mixed view.


The commenter explicitly condemns the policy as "Horrible!" and calls it "sodomy promoting school policy," indicating clear rejection of the regulation. The comment also urges "Repent" and warns against those who "corrupt children," which reinforces opposition rather than support or neutrality.


Against this proposal, for mutual respect

The commenter explicitly says, "I find this completely unacceptable" and frames the title as "Against this proposal," indicating rejection of the regulation. They argue against school privacy protections for transgender students and oppose shared bathroom access, asking to "Leave the boys' bathroom for boys... and the girls' bathroom for girls."


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Opposed to Transgender Policy changes" and argues the school should not "take the parent out of the discussion." They reject school support for transgender students and object to "allowing a boy into the changing room" and "little girls using the same restroom" with biological boys.


The commenter explicitly says "Very Strongly Oppose" and repeatedly argues the draft policy "put these children in harm’s way" and "completely undermines the authority of parents." They also call for protecting privacy and claim the policy infringes parental rights and ignores biology, all of which indicate rejection of the regulation.