DO NOT Support, this has no basis in biological science

The commenter explicitly says, "We do not support this," which directly rejects the regulation. They also argue it "has no basis in science" and is "putting every kid at risk," indicating opposition rather than a request for changes.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose this document," which directly states opposition to adoption. The follow-up about leaving "the social engineering out of the classroom" reinforces that they want the policy rejected.


Strongly oppose gender discussions and accommodations for change

The commenter explicitly says, "Strongly oppose gender discussions and accommodations" and rejects the policy as a "liberal transgender agenda." They also state, "No other discussion needs to be held," indicating opposition to adoption of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do not approve of the proposed transgender guidelines," which directly rejects the regulation. They also object that "the parents of the student not being actively engaged nor included," indicating opposition based on parental involvement concerns.


DISGRACEFUL....LET PARENTS RAISE THEIR KIDS

The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, calling it "DISGRACEFUL" and saying "these policies are discriminatory and is child abuse." They repeatedly argue against state involvement in gender identity support at school and conclude with "LET PARENTS RAISE their kids," indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly rejects the regulation’s subject matter, saying schools should "only be taught academics, not social issues" and that schools have "no business indoctrinating" children. They ask to "bring the focus back on academics," which indicates opposition to adopting this transgender guidance.


VDOE Draft Model Policies for the Treatment of Transgender Students

The commenter is "emphatically and unequivocally opposed to the proposed policies" and urges officials to "cease and desist" from imposing them. They argue the policies are "indoctrination" and an overreach that usurps parental rights, which clearly indicates rejection of adoption.


The commenter explicitly states, "I support the Model Policies for the Treatment of Transgender Students in Virginia’s Public Schools." This is a direct endorsement of the regulation with no qualifications or objections.


Strongly Oppose Transgender Agenda and Accomodations

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose all of the proposed guidelines" and rejects any "discussion, 'exploration', or accommodation" for transgender students in schools. They also object to preferred pronouns and any instruction beyond "male/female biology," indicating opposition to the regulation as a whole.


The commenter explicitly says adopting the guidelines is "astonishingly dangerous" and warns they would bring "confusion, conflict, self-destruction, and chaos." The focus on harms to "school-aged girls" in sports and restrooms indicates opposition to the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose this new VDOE guidance" and repeats that the policy should not go into effect. They also argue it is "very one sided," threatens their family’s beliefs, and could put children at "undo risk," all of which indicate rejection rather than support or neutrality.


I do not support this when only 2% of students ID as trans

The commenter explicitly says, "I do not support this" and ends with "Do not pass this," which clearly opposes adoption of the regulation. The comment also argues it harms "the other 98%" and raises objections about parents, bathrooms, and locker rooms, reinforcing opposition.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support the Model Policies for the Treatment of Transgender Students in Virginia’s Public Schools" and adds "Keep transgender students safe in VA schools," which clearly endorses adoption of the regulation. There is no language indicating opposition or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly says "fully support" and urges adoption: "Support like this has been shown to reduce trans students suicide rates." They also frame the policy as necessary, saying "change like this is more than needed."


The commenter explicitly says, "I do not support!" and characterizes the policy as "an attack on families," which clearly indicates opposition to adoption. There is no request for modification or neutral information, only rejection.


No major decision without parental consent - do not agree

The commenter says, "nothing should happen without parental consent," which rejects the policy framework unless parents approve each action. Although they begin with "I am all for inclusive," the operative position is a condition that would substantially limit implementation of the transgender student policies.


The commenter calls the policies "TOTALLY ridiculous" and says they are "so difficult to enforce," indicating rejection of the regulation. They also argue against specific provisions, including locker room access, sports participation, and privacy from parents, while questioning whether the guidelines are valid at all.


Oppose Policies for the Treatment Of Transgender Students

The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose the model policies being presented for the treatment of transgender students." They argue the policies would "restrict my student's First Amendment" rights and invoke the "Equal Protection Clause," concluding, "Do not force others to believes as you."


The commenter opens with "Strongly disagree" and argues that the policy gives children inappropriate decision-making power, comparing it to "giving a fifth grader the right to vote or to join the army." They also object that it surrenders "parental experience and responsibility" to schools or the state, indicating clear opposition to the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "These guidance policies are unnecessary" and calls them "in error." They argue the policies "promot[e] further discrimination" and "promote a denial of human dignity," indicating opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly asks to "make school and these formative years as enjoyable and inclusive for these students" and says "They need our support and love," which clearly endorses the policy’s goal of supporting transgender/LGBTQ+ students. The comment is affirmative and does not express any opposition or reservations.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do not approve the guidelines" and calls the policies "totally unworkable." They also object that the rules would "force all students, faculty and administrators to comply with an empirically false view of sex and gender," indicating rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support the policies to protect trans students in VA!" This is a clear endorsement of adopting the regulation, and the statement that transgender kids "deserve to feel safe at school" reinforces support for the policy goals.


Draft model policies for the treatment of transgender students

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose these draft model policies" and states they "do not approve" of the proposed guidelines. The rest of the comment gives reasons for opposition, criticizing them as "radical theories" and claiming they "indoctrinate our school children."


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support the adoption of these model policies" and repeats that they "would love to have these policies adopted." They also endorse specific provisions like using students' preferred names/pronouns and protecting them from bullying.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy direction, saying they "fail to see how these policies protect transgender students" and arguing the changes will "destroy parent’s rights" and create "many bad situations." They conclude that "Much more thought, research, and fair and balanced discussions are needed before POLICY changes are made," which indicates opposition to adopting the regulation as written.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do not support this policy" and asks to "refocus on academics," indicating rejection of the regulation. They argue it promotes "secularism as a religion" and infringes on "freedom of and from religion" and "free speech," which are objections to adoption.


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


Authority does not grant privileges, It DEMANDS  Responsibility.

The commenter explicitly rejects the policy as "insane measures" and says the schools are "trying to tell our children something different," framing it as an agenda that should not be adopted. They argue the rules "remove viable guidelines and safety measures" and invoke religious objections to transgender recognition.


Protect parental rights - Oppose perverted agenda

The commenter explicitly says "Oppose" in the title and repeatedly rejects the policy as a "twisted government policy" that would "subvert parental authority." They ask schools to "leave the rest to the parents," indicating opposition to the regulation's adoption.


The commenter explicitly says they are "Vehemently opposed" and repeatedly argues the policies are "completely baseless, absurd, unnecessary, and unenforceable." They also call for the policies to be rejected by describing them as harmful to parents, children, teachers, and girls' facilities and sports.


The commenter explicitly says, "Fully support! Policy like this is well overdue" and frames the regulation as "an anti-bullying and harassment policy for children." The rest of the comment attacks opponents, but the clear position is in favor of adopting the policy.


Absolutely oppose these totally inappropriate guidelines

The commenter explicitly says "Absolutely oppose" and "I am totally against every part of this." They also reject specific provisions such as restroom/locker room access and parental involvement, indicating opposition to adopting the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "we strongly oppose," which clearly indicates rejection of the proposed policies. The opening reference to being a parent of "3 children in elementary school" provides context but does not change the stated position.


Model policies for the treatment of transgender students

The commenter explicitly says, "I do not approve of the proposed guidelines," which clearly rejects the regulation. The rest of the comment criticizes the policies as "radical theories" and "indoctrination," reinforcing opposition rather than support for adoption.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly opposed" and calls the policy "dangerous indoctrination," indicating rejection of the regulation. The mention of "undermining of parental rights and responsibilities" further shows opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says "Disapprove of VDOE transgender policy" and argues against adoption throughout, calling the policy "non-scientific" and warning it will "reap irreparable harm." They also reject the underlying premise of the policy, stating "There are only two genders" and that affected students need "counseling, not affirmation."


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly OPPOSE VDOE transgender draft policy guidelines," which directly rejects the regulation. The statement "These proposed policies are a detriment to all involved" further indicates opposition rather than support or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do not approve of the proposed guidelines" and calls them "wrong and absolutely horrifying," indicating clear rejection of the regulation. The statement that "Boys are boys and girls are girls" further shows opposition to the transgender student policies.


The commenter explicitly says they are "strongly opposed" to the policy and calls it a "massive infringement" and "reckless and dangerous." They argue it should not be used in schools to "push" these policies, indicating rejection of adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support the draft guidance provided by the VDOE." They also endorse the policy goals, stating it will help ensure students "can learn in a safe and supportive environment."


VDOE draft of treatment of "transgender" students

The commenter explicitly says they "take great issue with the guidelines being proposed" and argues against multiple provisions, including bathroom/locker room access and athletic participation. They frame the policy as violating religion, parental rights, and safety, indicating they want the guidance rejected rather than adopted.


The commenter explicitly says, "No support from this parent of 4" and states they "do not agree with the sweeping changes." They also say they "could not in good faith send my children to school in Virginia," indicating rejection of the regulation as written.


The commenter explicitly says "Absolutely AGAINST" and warns that if VDOE "passes and supports this ludicrous document" teachers should resign. The remarks reject the policy on the grounds that "Rules are meant to be followed" and invoke "Majority rules!" as a reason against it.


Unbelievable that this is even a debate.  What is our world coming to?

The commenter explicitly says, "I absolutely do not now, nor will I ever support such an abomination" and urges legislators to "stop" considering it. The final line, "This must stop," clearly indicates opposition to adopting the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do not support it" and "Please do not adopt these guidelines," which clearly rejects the proposed regulation. They also argue it would "take[] the responsibility of raising children away from parents" and cause harm to children and families, reinforcing opposition.


The commenter explicitly says society should "simply accept" transgender identity and urges that "our kids express themselves without fear of retribution." They also praise the policy direction as freeing students from "antiquated norms," which indicates clear support for adoption.


Think about what the Chief Justice predicted!   We oppose these policies.

The commenter explicitly states, "We oppose these policies" and repeatedly urges Virginia to "reverse course immediately." The body argues the policies would erase traditional family roles and threaten constitutional freedom, showing clear opposition to adoption of the regulation.


I strongly SUPPORT these policies for protecting trans and non-binary youth

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly SUPPORT these policies" and repeatedly endorses implementation of the proposed document. They praise the policies for "protecting trans and non-binary youth" and say, "I support trans youth" and "I applaud" those who developed them.


Don't support infringing parent rights, non-definable status, one sided inclusivity education

The commenter repeatedly says they "do not support" the document and objects to multiple core provisions, including parental notification, gender identity procedures, LGBTQ-inclusive education, and staff training. They argue the policy "infring[es] parent rights" and should require more evidence and parental involvement, indicating opposition to adoption as written.


Parents have the legal right- via the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA, 1974),

The commenter explicitly says, "I do not approve of many of the guidelines proposed" and argues the draft policies should not reduce parental communication or allow gender-identity accommodations. They repeatedly criticize specific provisions, including restroom access, pronoun/name changes, confidentiality from parents, and CPS reporting guidance.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Support" and asks, "Please enact these policies to protect our transgender youth." They also argue the policies would help ensure "ALL students feel safe and protected at school" and prevent discrimination.


Schools should be inclusive - I support the guidelines

The commenter explicitly says, "I support the guidelines" and asks to "stand firm in protecting transgender students." They argue the policies are necessary for inclusion, safety, and preventing harm, including references to suicide, homelessness, and emotional harm.


The commenter explicitly says, "I am 100% in support of your draft guidance" and praises it as "best practices for creating inclusive school environments for trans and non-binary students." The comment clearly endorses adoption of the regulation and offers a reason for support.


The commenter explicitly titles the submission "Strongly Support" and states that "Treat trans students with respect and dignity." They also endorse the policy goal by saying "creating healthy environments in the school leads to more positive outcomes."


Oppose this radical and harmful legislation

The commenter explicitly says, "I do not support this insanity" and frames the policy as "radical and harmful". They object to pronoun use and claim it takes "parents rightful authority" away, indicating clear opposition to adoption of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly DISAGREE this absurdity" and argues the policy will harm children, stating "The safety and innocence of the kids will be stripped off." They also reject the pronoun-related aspects of the policy as "absurd," indicating opposition to adoption.


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

The commenter explicitly says, "I vehemently disagree with and oppose the proposed Model Policies" and ends with "Stop now," which clearly rejects adoption of the regulation. The language also calls it an "unconstitutional, leftist intrusion," reinforcing strong opposition rather than a request for modification.


Why are the children always the pawn of radical agendas that want permission tmutilate their bodies?

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose any agenda" and objects to "remov[ing] the right of parents and giv[ing] it to the state." The comment rejects the regulation as a "radical and damaging agenda" and argues against state involvement in children’s gender-related decisions.


There is no part of this that is acceptable.

The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, saying "There is no part of this that is acceptable" and calling it "completely absurd" and "an unacceptable violation of the rights of the majority." They also ask to "Please reconsider" the policy, indicating opposition to adoption as written.


The commenter explicitly says, "Please do not pass this," which is a direct request to reject the proposed regulation. No supporting reasons or qualifications are provided, but the intent is clear.


The commenter explicitly says, "I fully support this new policy!!!" and adds that "Schools should be a safe and inclusive place for everyone!" This clearly endorses adoption of the regulation.


School district is walking into a legal minefield

The commenter argues that schools should not conceal a child's gender-related statements from parents and says the district is "opening itself up to so many lawsuits." The overall framing is strongly against the policy, describing it as a "legal minefield" and warning it will lead to damages and litigation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I WHOLEHEARTEDLY support" the model policies. There is no qualifying language or criticism, indicating clear approval of adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support this" and adds that "Schools must be inclusive, allowing and supporting all children." They further describe it as "good policy" to ensure inclusion for a "marginalized group," indicating clear approval of the regulation.


Strongly support! All children deserve to feel safe and secure

The commenter explicitly says, "Strongly support!" and repeatedly urges action: "Please enact this policy." They frame the policy as protective and beneficial, saying it will "protect these kids" and promote acceptance.


The commenter explicitly says, "We strongly support protecting these fundamental human rights," which clearly endorses the regulation. They also argue that protecting transgender students is necessary to prevent "persecution, discrimination, or bullying," indicating approval of the policy's purpose and protections.


Absolutely support these important guidelines - all children should feel safe to be themselves

The commenter explicitly says, "Absolutely support these important guidelines" and praises them as "extremely important." They also endorse the underlying purpose by saying children should be able to express themselves "without fearing retribution or being ostracized."


STRONGLY OPPOSE to NO PARENTAL CONSENT on meds - bad even for families with TRANSGENDER children!

The commenter explicitly says, "This bill should be rejected" and "STRONGLY OPPOSE," making their position clear. They repeatedly argue the policy is "unacceptable" and should be opposed even by "families supporting transgender kids."


The commenter explicitly labels the submission "Oppose" and states that the model regulations "infringe upon the First Amendment rights of parents." This is a clear objection to adoption of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do not approve of the proposed guidelines" and titles the comment "Strongly Oppose." They argue the policies would "usurp parental rights" and could discriminate against teachers with "deeply held beliefs," indicating rejection of the regulation.


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


Strongly oppose.   Keep our children safe.

The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose" and urges, "Do not trample on the role of the parent," indicating rejection of the proposed transgender student policies. The phrase "Keep our children safe" is used as a reason for opposing the regulation rather than supporting it.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support this" and adds that "People deserve fair and equal treatment," which indicates approval of the regulation. The note that "Judgement should be left to the parents regarding transgender matters" suggests a preference for parental involvement, but it does not negate the overall supportive stance.


Strongly Oppose. Will undermine the role of a parent for their child

The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Oppose" and argues the policy will "undermine the role of a parent for their child." They also object to related transgender care by warning that surgery should not be performed on young children, indicating rejection of the regulation's approach.


Opposed - As proposed, model policy undermines and bypasses Parents - this is wrong

The commenter explicitly states "Opposed" and says the policy "undermines and bypasses Parents," indicating they do not want it adopted as proposed. The phrase "this is wrong" reinforces rejection rather than support or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly says, "We oppose this," indicating rejection of the proposed policies. They further specify a preferred alternative—"bathroom and locker room settings are accessible based on the person's sex assigned at birth"—which conflicts with the regulation's transgender-inclusive approach.


The commenter explicitly labels the submission "Oppose" and argues that schools should not adopt these policies, calling them "based on nothing more than philosophical differences" and saying "The school has no place imposing" them. They also state that existing bullying rules are sufficient and emphasize maintaining "separate spaces for biological boys and girls," which rejects the regulation's approach.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support the guidance document," which directly endorses adoption. They further justify this by saying transgender students should not encounter "deadnaming, fear, discrimination" and that school should be "a place of safety and learning."


Strongly support! Keep our children SAFE!!!

The commenter explicitly says "Strongly support!" and urges the policy to "Keep our children safe" while asking to "respect their choice for gender identity." The reference to avoiding suicide indicates support for protections for transgender students rather than opposition to the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY OPPOSED" and "Oppose LGBT ideology," which clearly indicates rejection of the proposed transgender student policies. There is no request for modification or support for adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I am not for document," indicating opposition to the proposed policies. The statement "We keep the right of parents to act in the behalf of their children" suggests a parental-rights objection to the regulation.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy: "No way no how" and calls it "a shameful and disgusting bill" that should not be supported. They argue it violates parental rights, religious freedom, and school resources, and object to changing records and names for transgender students.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY OPPOSE These Policies," which directly rejects adoption of the regulation. They also argue the policies "infringe on the First Amendment Rights of Parents," indicating substantive opposition rather than a neutral question or suggestion.


The draft policies would undercut parents’ involvement in the life of their children at school, and endanger the bodily privacy and safety of all students.

The commenter explicitly says the draft policies "would undercut parents’ involvement" and "endanger the bodily privacy and safety of all students," which is a clear objection to adoption. The language is directly critical of the regulation and argues against it on parental rights and safety grounds.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose!" and frames the regulation as infringing "the First Amendment rights of parents to raise and care for their children." This is a clear rejection of the proposed policies rather than a request for modification.


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


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose" and argues the guidelines "will generate chaotic situations" and "significantly detract from a healthy school learning environment." Although they suggest "more moderate adjustments," the overall position is against adopting the regulation as written.


I oppose this infringement of parents' rights.

The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose this infringement of parents' rights," which directly rejects the proposed policy. The phrase frames the regulation as an infringement, indicating opposition rather than a request for modification.


The commenter says, "I am strongly opposed to these transgender policies," which directly rejects the regulation. The added statement, "I will not support any lawmaker who supports them," reinforces opposition rather than asking for changes.


I strongly oppose ignoring parental rights

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose" the proposed policy and frames the issue as "ignoring parental rights," indicating rejection of the regulation. No supportive or neutral language appears.


Draft Policies for Treatment of Transgendered Students

The commenter argues that the policies are based on “recent ideas” that are “without sound scientific basis” and says they would create a system that is “easily exploited and impossible to administer fairly.” This is a clear rejection of the draft policies rather than support or a neutral inquiry.


The comment explicitly says "OPPOSE" and urges "LET PARENTS’ DECIDE," indicating rejection of the proposed transgender student policies in favor of parental control. It does not offer support or neutral feedback.


Oppose transgender policies proposed by VDOE

The commenter explicitly says the VDOE has "gone far beyond the path the General Assembly prescribed" and argues schools should not adopt these policies. They call the regulations "harmful" and say the model regulations "infringe the First Amendment rights of parents," indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly labels the submission "OPPOSE" and says "This cannot stand," indicating rejection of the regulation. They also object that it is "Taking the rights away from parents" and call it "very dangerous," which shows clear opposition rather than a request for modification.


The commenter explicitly says "Fully support this" and argues the policy helps children feel safe and provides "a safe space." They frame the regulation as needed support for students and parents rather than "over reach."


The commenter explicitly says "Oppose" and argues that public schools should not be "a vehicle for encouraging transgender." They also object to the policy’s implications for facilities use, stating that "boys and girls using the same locker rooms is unsafe and disrespectful."


The commenter explicitly labels the submission "Oppose" and says to "Throw out this transgender agenda." They argue the policy is "only harmful" and reject the idea that "sex doesn’t matter," indicating they want the regulation rejected rather than adopted.


The comment is an emphatic rejection of the regulation, repeating "NO!! NO!! NO!! NO," with no qualifying language or request for changes. It clearly signals the commenter does not want the policy adopted.


The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose the transgender policies proposed," which directly rejects adoption of the regulation. The opening line, "Parents should be promoted and not demoted," suggests a concern that the policy diminishes parental authority, reinforcing opposition.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Opposed" and urges, "Stop all of this liberal insanity," which clearly rejects the proposed policies. The language indicates opposition to adoption rather than a request for modification.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose" and argues the VDOE has "gone far beyond the path the General Assembly prescribed." They also state the policies "infringe the First Amendment rights of parents" and should not accommodate gender transitions, indicating clear rejection of the regulation.


The commenter does not clearly endorse or reject the regulation; they say they "stopped reading" after objecting that the "definition of gender ... is not correct" and ask to "Please revise doc and then I will reread and evaluate." This indicates a request for revision and deferral of judgment rather than a firm position on adoption.


The comment is hostile toward the regulation’s apparent support for transgender students, asking, "Why you people are so threatened by actual natural facts," which signals rejection rather than support. It does not offer a policy suggestion or neutral question; instead it attacks the premise of the guidance.


The commenter explicitly titles the comment "Support" and states that the policy "will help schools provide support and guidance to all students." They further say it will ensure students can attend school "feeling safe and included," which clearly endorses adoption of the policy.


The commenter explicitly says, "I fully support the proposals" and urges the DOE to "take a strong stance in favor of trans Virginian students and their families." This is a clear endorsement of adopting the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose this transgender policy" and calls it "an over-reach by the schools." They object specifically to "children share restrooms and locker rooms with members of the opposite biological sex," indicating rejection of the policy's core provisions.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose" and argues that "Allowing children to decide for themselves what gender they are is child abuse." They reject the policy’s premise, insisting "If a child is created a boy, he is a boy! If a child is created a girl, she is a girl," which clearly opposes adoption of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I can't support any part of this," and argues the policies are harmful because they expose young children to "transgenderism." They also call the idea of child transgenderism illegitimate and describe the policies as "child abuse," indicating clear opposition to adoption of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "Vehemently Oppose" and "None of this should be discussed at any level in public schools," which clearly rejects the regulation. The language also calls the policy "nonsense" and "Disgusting," indicating strong opposition rather than a request for modification.


Public Education is no place to address illnesses

The commenter explicitly says to "Just stop the lunacy" and argues the school system has "no right" to ask about students' "sexual preference" or address these issues, indicating rejection of the proposed transgender student policies. They also say the school should "dedicate school efforts towards education" instead of addressing these matters, which supports opposition to the regulation.


Model Policies for the Treatment of Transgender Students

The commenter says, "I strongly oppose reductions in parental rights," which indicates opposition to the proposed policies insofar as they are seen as limiting parental authority. No language suggests support or neutrality.


Transgender regulations proposed by VDOE

The commenter says the proposed model "infringes on the First Amendment rights of parents" and argues that the VDOE should not "usurp" parental authority. This is a clear objection to the regulation as written and a call to reject its interference with parental rights.


The commenter explicitly says the proposed policy is "in direct opposition to the beliefs of most parents" and that schools "should not express ideas" conflicting with family beliefs. They also argue transgender topics "should not be" in schools, which indicates rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support the guidelines" and explains that they are meant "to keep trans students safe at school." They further affirm that trans students have "the right to be safe in all public spaces including schools," indicating clear approval of the regulation.


Strongly support - will save children's lives

The commenter explicitly says "Strongly support" and argues the guidance will "save children's lives." They endorse the policy as a way to let children explore gender identity safely and praise its affirming approach.


The commenter explicitly labels the comment "Support" and states that "All children ... require a safe environment" and that adults have a responsibility to "advocate for and protect children." The language endorses protecting transgender students' rights and safety, which aligns with adopting the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly disagree with the proposed guidelines," which clearly indicates opposition to adoption. The title "Strongly disapprove" reinforces that the commenter wants the regulation rejected.


The commenter explicitly says, "I fully support this measure," which directly endorses adoption of the regulation. The phrase "to help keep Virginia's children safe" provides a positive reason for support rather than any objection or request to weaken it.


Strongly disapprove of Virginia Depart of Education policy on treatment of Transgender students

The commenter explicitly says, "Strongly disapprove" and argues the policy is a "liberal agenda" that should not be pushed into schools. They also object to bathroom/locker room access and say the policy "completely cuts parents out of the decision making," indicating clear opposition to adoption.


Opposition to transgender policies proposed by the VDOE.

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose the transgender policies proposed by the VDOE" and argues the policies "are certainly not needed." They also frame the policies as taking away "the rights of parents," indicating clear opposition to adoption.


Opposition to transgender bills for schools

The commenter explicitly says, "I do not support these transgender bills" and concludes, "This bill makes all children less safe and should not pass." The body argues against the policy on safety and medical grounds, indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "Strongly urge support of trans and non gender binary students" and refers to "These guides" as beneficial. They argue the policies are "vital for the mental health of these students" and state they will not negatively affect other students' rights.


The commenter argues for a new requirement that schools must communicate with parents and criticizes the policy for "hiding very important, life-changing information" from guardians. This indicates opposition to the proposed transgender student policies as written, at least insofar as they protect student privacy without mandatory parental notification.


Concerned for the safety of our children

The commenter explicitly says, "I am opposed to the policies in this document" and repeatedly argues the VDOE "has gone far beyond" what was prescribed. The comment urges rejection based on concerns about privacy, parental rights, and opposition to "gender transitions."


The commenter explicitly states, "I SUPPORT the guidance," which directly endorses adoption of the regulation. The title also says "SUPPORT," reinforcing the position.


The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose this bill for the way it is written." They also argue against recognizing transgender identities, stating "We are born male or female" and that children should be taught "who they really are," while only allowing separate spaces rather than the policy's protections.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose" and argues that schools should not be "accommodating" policies that encourage "irreversible 'gender transitions'." This is a clear rejection of the proposed transgender student policies.


The commenter explicitly says "OPPOSE" and argues the policy is "arrogant and irresponsible". They object to schools "encourag[ing] children who are confused about their gender" and claim it causes harm, indicating clear opposition to adoption of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I refuse the proposal" and frames the regulation as harmful to children, warning it will cause "irrevocable damage." This is a clear rejection of the proposed transgender policies rather than a request for modification.


Please Protect Transgender Students; they deserve equal treatment respecting their identities

The commenter explicitly says, "I applaud the Department for going forward with the proposed Bill and guidance policies" and says they "should produce a more equal educational opportunity." This is clear approval of the regulation and its goals of protecting transgender students.


The commenter explicitly labels the proposal "opposed" and says it "should be revised to do what the law requires and no more." They object to specific provisions, arguing that requiring staff to use pronouns they view as inconsistent with sex assigned at birth is "to force them to lie" and would transgress on the rights of others.


The commenter explicitly says "Support the transgender student policies" and repeatedly states that "These policies are necessary" and "will help transgender students feel safe and respected at school." The comment argues the policies should be adopted to prevent harassment and ensure equal access to education.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do not approve of this!" which clearly rejects the regulation. The follow-up, "Parents need to be advised and involved," indicates a concern that the policy gives insufficient parental involvement, reinforcing opposition rather than support for adoption.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly appose" and argues that "when adults they can decide," indicating opposition to the transgender student policies for children. The brief statement suggests they do not want the regulation adopted as written.


The commenter explicitly titles the submission "oppose Model Policies for the Treatment of Transgender Students in Virginia's Public Schools" and says the VDOE "has gone far beyond the path the General Assembly prescribed." They object to the policies' substantive views, including the quoted statement about gender identity, indicating they do not want the regulation adopted as written.


The commenter explicitly says, "Strongly oppose adoption of these policies," which directly states opposition to the regulation. No supporting or neutral language is present.


OPPOSE strongly the VDOE proposed policies re: transgender

The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose the alleged need for new VDOE policies" and titles the comment "OPPOSE strongly." They argue against recognizing transgender identities in children, indicating they want the proposed policies rejected rather than adopted.


The commenter explicitly asks the legislature to "oppose the proposed" VDOE model policies and repeatedly argues they are "not fair" and "not one" of the ways to help youth. They also say the proposal "challenges Women's Rights" and "violates Title IX," indicating clear rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly rejects the proposed policies, saying the VDOE has "gone far beyond the path the General Assembly prescribed" and that the model regulations "infringe the First Amendment rights of parents." The comment argues schools should not adopt policies that allow transgender accommodations in intimate spaces and calls the guidance harmful.


The commenter explicitly labels the submission "Oppose" and states, "These policies are deeply harmful to children," which clearly rejects the regulation. No mitigating or supportive language is present.


The commenter explicitly says, "Oppose As Being Clearly Unconstitutional on Several Fronts" and argues the proposal is "beyond misguided" and would "violate and interfere with" multiple rights. The body repeatedly frames the regulation as harmful and urges against adopting it.


STRONGLY OPPOSED, protect parental rights! Protect chilren!

The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY OPPOSED" and "Opposed completely," which clearly rejects the regulation. They also argue it goes "against parental rights" and "children well being," indicating opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly titles the submission "Support" and states that "Transgender students deserve to be safe and supported in school." They further thank the agency for considering policies "aimed at ensuring the safety and support of these students," which clearly endorses adoption of the regulation.


No to Policies for the Treatment of Transgender Students in Virginia’s Public Schools

The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose the 'Model Policies for the Treatment of Transgender Students in Virginia’s Public Schools.'" They argue the policies violate privacy, are unenforceable, and should not allow transgender students access to sex-segregated facilities, indicating clear rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "I STRONGLY OPPOSE!!" and repeatedly argues the policy is "ridiculous," "unconstitutional," and an "atrocity." They also object to schools "forcing a new code" and say the school has "no right" to involve itself, indicating clear rejection of the regulation.


The comment explicitly says "Strongly oppose," which directly states opposition to the proposed regulation. No supporting or neutral language is present.


The commenter explicitly begins with "Oppose" and argues against placing "this conversation on five year olds," indicating they do not want the policy adopted as written. They also say "there has to be a better way," which suggests they want a different approach rather than support for the proposed guidance.


VDOE Guidance Document on Transgender Policy

The commenter says, "I strongly oppose any effort... to implement 'teaching' or establishing any guidance policies regarding the transgender ideology," which clearly rejects the regulation. They also argue, "Stop taking the primary role of teaching away from parents and grandparents," indicating opposition to government guidance on this topic.


This is a violation. There are other ways to help kids with gender dysphoria.

The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, saying "This is a violation" and that it "only damages children". They also argue it violates "the rights of parents" and suggest "There are other ways" to address gender dysphoria, indicating opposition to the regulation as written.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Opposed" and argues that "Parents raise and educate their children, not the state," which rejects the regulation’s role in school policy. This is a clear opposition to adoption of the proposed transgender student policies.


This is absurd. Totally against this transgender education

The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, calling it "absurd" and "Totally against this transgender education." They argue that "You are either male or female" and conclude, "So quit messing with kids," which clearly opposes adoption of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Oppose," "I do not approve," and "Please do not approve." They argue the guidelines would "do damage" and object to allowing "male and female locker rooms" to be used by the "opposite biological sex."


The commenter says the regulations "infringe the First Amendment rights of parents to raise and care for their children," which clearly اعتراضs to the policy and argues against its adoption. The comment offers no support or suggested improvements, only a constitutional objection.


treatment of transgender students in VA public schools

The commenter says they are "Saddened and outraged by this proposal," which clearly expresses disapproval of the regulation. No language suggests support or a neutral request for information.


The commenter says, "I strongly disagree with this policy," which directly rejects the regulation. They also argue for strict sex-based restroom and locker room use: "If you have a penis you use the boys restroom... If you have vagina you use the girls restroom," indicating opposition to the transgender accommodations in the policy.


The commenter explicitly says "strongly oppose" and repeatedly urges rejection, ending with "Stop it now." The body argues the policy is harmful, calling it "insane" and "cruel and torturous," and raises objections about bathrooms, sports, and parental notification.


The commenter explicitly says "Oppose transgender policies proposed by the Virginia Department of Education" and repeatedly argues the policies are "nothing but propagandas" that should not be imposed on children. They object to children learning about transgender topics and frame the guidance as harmful and inappropriate for age.


The commenter explicitly says, "Fully support policies to support LGBT+ students" and adds that "All students deserve to learn in an inclusive, safe environment." This clearly endorses adoption of the proposed policies.


OPPOSED to VDOE Proposed Transgender Guidelines

The commenter explicitly says, "I absolutely do not approve of these proposed guidelines!" and repeatedly argues they should not be adopted. They describe the policies as a "state overreach," claim they "endanger girls," and say they undermine "parental authority," all of which indicate clear opposition.


The commenter explicitly says they are "Strongly in favor of policies that protect the rights of transgender children" and urges action to make school "a safe and positive one." This clearly supports adopting the regulation.


Trabs Use of Rest Rooms and Locker Rooms

The commenter says transgender people "should be given the same rights as anyone else" and argues for accommodations such as a third restroom labeled "Family" and similar facilities for sports. Although they criticize the policy as "not... properly thought out," the overall thrust is to support transgender access with separate accommodations rather than reject the regulation outright.


As a concerned uncle I strongly oppose this! This is an absolute blatant infringement of our rights!

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose this!" which directly indicates rejection of the regulation. The phrase "absolute blatant infringement of our rights" further shows opposition to adoption.


Strongly Support!!!  All Kids Deserve to Feel Safe and That They Belong at School.

The commenter explicitly says, "I urge you not only to ratify and release this Guidance Document" and "Strongly Support!!!". They argue the policies are needed so children feel "safe" and "belong at school" and to protect all students from discrimination.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose several key provisions" and describes the guidance as "an outrageous intrusion" and "very destructive". Although they support eliminating hostility toward transgender students and allowing participation in non-gender-specific activities, they reject the privacy and identity-affirmation provisions and want the work done "in dialogue with the parents" instead.


The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose in the Strongest terms possible" and calls the policy "horrible policy." They also argue that it is "NOT up to our schools to enforce the politically correct agenda of the moment," indicating clear rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do not approve of their proposed guidelines" and the title reads "Oppose these dangerous policy changes." The body repeatedly argues the policies are harmful and should not be adopted, citing concerns about pronouns, parental notification, bathrooms, dress codes, and religious objections.


The commenter explicitly rejects the proposal in the title, writing "No to transgender regulations proposed by Va. Dept. of Education!!!" and repeatedly urges "Don't do it!" They argue the policy is "highly dangerous" and would lead to assaults and lawsuits, indicating clear opposition to adoption.


I strongly oppose. Confused children need time to grow up& understand more before adults condone.

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose" and repeatedly urges, "Do not make schools support this aberrant behavior." The body argues the policy is "anti-family, anti-religious" and calls transgender/gay identity "radical" and "destructive," indicating clear rejection of the regulation.


None of this is in the best interest of children.

The commenter rejects the policy, saying "None of this is in the best interest of children" and calling it "ridiculous." They argue that schools should not handle gender-related matters without parental knowledge, indicating opposition to the transgender student policies as written.


The commenter explicitly states, "I do not support this policy," which directly rejects the proposed regulation. There is no qualifying language suggesting support with changes or a neutral inquiry.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do not approve of this," which directly rejects the proposed regulation. The added phrase "anti parent, anti teacher" reinforces opposition rather than support or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support the draft guidance provided by the VDOE." This is a clear endorsement of adopting the regulation/guidance as proposed.


VDOE Proposed Public School Transgender Policies

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose the guidelines proposed by the Virginia Department of Education" and repeatedly argues against adopting them. They describe the policies as "ultra-progressive dogma," a "severe trampling of freedom," and say they would not send their children to a school with these rules.


Transgender Rules, model policies - oppose

The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose the proposed rules" and gives a reason for that opposition: it "removes parents from being involved in the decision process." This is a clear rejection of the regulation as written.


Long overdue, 100% support - this is suicide prevention

The commenter explicitly says "Long overdue, 100% support" and "Support 100%". They also frame the policy as necessary protection, calling it "suicide prevention" and saying it is "the least school systems can do" for transgender youth.


The commenter explicitly says, "Do Not Support this policy!" which clearly indicates opposition to adoption. There is no qualifying language suggesting support with changes or a neutral question.


The commenter explicitly says, "Fully support" and repeats, "I fully support this!!" This is a clear endorsement of the proposed regulation with no reservations or objections.


The commenter explicitly says, "We Do NOT support these policies" and asks that the guidelines not be adopted. They describe the proposal as "an attack on our Rights" and object to it as "radical theories," indicating clear opposition rather than a request for changes.


The comment explicitly says, "Protect transgender students!" which aligns with the regulation’s purpose of providing protections and supportive policies for transgender students in public schools. It offers clear affirmative support and no criticism or request to weaken the policy.


Do not support taking away parental guidance

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose this policy" and urges, "do not continue with these policies." They argue it "prevents parents from being parents" and takes away students' ability to object to shared bathrooms/dressing rooms, indicating rejection of the regulation rather than support with changes.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, calling it an "ill-conceived setup" and arguing that it "usurp[s] parental authority" and "compels speech and belief." The comment frames the guidelines as harmful to parents, students, and schools rather than supporting adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly disagree with this policy" and "I do not agree with this policy," indicating clear opposition to adoption. They also argue it "goes against a lot of people's religious values and beliefs" and should not be "forced on them," which reinforces rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly disagree with this policy" and "I don't agree with this policy at all," indicating clear opposition. They also argue it "goes against a lot of people's religious beliefs" and should not be "forced on anyone," which shows they want the policy rejected.


Opposed: Unnecessary and unintended consequences

The commenter explicitly labels the submission "Opposed" and says "these policies are unnecessary" and "an overreach." They also argue the rules will be "harmful to Virginia students and educators" and violate "religious rights," indicating rejection of the regulation rather than support with changes.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly disagree with this policy," which directly indicates opposition. The additional statement that "These policies will create further confusion for everyone" reinforces a negative view of adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose" and "I do not approve of these proposed guidelines." They argue the policies are harmful, calling them a "fad" that will "do irreparable damage," which clearly indicates opposition to adoption.


RE: VDOE draft model policies for the treatment of transgender

The commenter clearly rejects the proposed policies, warning that this "government overstepping behavior" will cause parents to pull students out of public schools. They explicitly call the public school system a "corrupt unionized indoctrination system" that should be "defunded and dismantled," indicating strong opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I am glad this policy exists to protect her throughout her education," which clearly endorses the regulation. The title "Trans Rights are Human Rights" and reference to trans family members further indicate support for the policy's protections.


The commenter explicitly says, "We do not approve of the proposed guidelines from the VDOE" and asks to "rescind this radical ideology," which clearly rejects the regulation. The reference to "Follow the science" is used to argue against the policy rather than support it.


The commenter states, "I am absolutely opposed to this," which directly rejects the proposed regulation. The title "Strongly disagree" reinforces clear opposition with no qualifying support or questions.


The commenter explicitly argues the model policies should not be adopted, stating they "do not increase this right for all children" and that "If enacted, this model will increase discrimination and harassment of groups of students." They also urge VDOE to "evaluate how this model will affect some students negatively" before adoption.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Oppose" and argues the policy should not be adopted, claiming it creates "risk for targeted religious discrimination" and "sets schools up for lawsuits." They also reject its purpose, saying it "was crafted to broadcast political correctness" and is "not to work for any child's best interest."


The commenter explicitly says, "I am in full support of these model policies" and argues that "Every student absolutely deserves a safe, supportive learning environment." They also describe accommodations for transgender and gender-expansive students as "long overdue," indicating clear approval of adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support the guidance" and adds that Virginia should be "a model for inclusivity and support for all students." This clearly endorses adoption of the regulation.


New  VDOE Policy puts children and taxpayer dollars at risk

The commenter explicitly rejects the proposal, saying "Do not be confused" by those supporting it and that "This heavy-handed policy does not meet the needs" of Virginia. They argue it would create litigation risk and violate "parental rights," which indicates opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly rejects the proposal, calling the changes "absolute INSANITY" and saying they are "incredibly discriminatory" and have "absolutely no scientific or logical backing." They also characterize the policy as harmful "indoctrinating" and compare it to "a totalitarian organization," indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter clearly objects to the policy, saying schools are acting "behind the parent's back" and that it "want[s] to take away the rights of the parents." The final sentence indicates opposition to "any law that usurps the parents rights," which signals rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose these policies," which directly indicates rejection of the regulation. The statement that "It is not the school’s place to guide a student through a gender identity process" further shows opposition to the policy’s purpose and implementation.


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

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


The commenter explicitly states "Strongly Oppose." twice, which clearly indicates rejection of the proposed regulation. No supporting reasons or qualifications are provided.


The commenter explicitly opens with "Strongly Support" and repeatedly argues that "trans people need access to bathrooms that align with their gender identity" and "want[s] the same protections that cisgender folks enjoy." The comment clearly endorses the regulation’s protections for transgender students and asks to "Live and let live."


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose" and argues the policy is "wrong." They object to state involvement and frame the guidance as violating "God-given parental rights," indicating rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly calls the policies "completely ridiculous" and frames them as "tyrannical" and an "abuse" of rights, indicating clear rejection of the regulation. The closing question "Do they want this? NO!" further confirms opposition.


The commenter explicitly says, "Of course I support this" and the title reads "STRONGLY SUPPORT." They also argue the policy will "save[]" lives by providing "a safe environment for kids," which clearly endorses adoption of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I cannot endorse many of the guidelines proposed" and repeatedly argues that the draft policies should not be adopted because they "remove parents' protections" and "go far beyond" acceptable policy. The comment frames the regulation as harmful to children, parents, and religious beliefs, indicating clear opposition rather than a request for modification only.


The commenter explicitly says "Vote NO!" and urges Virginia to "Stop using my taxpayer money" for the policy, indicating clear opposition to adoption. They also argue against transgender student protections by calling it a "transgender kid epidemic" and warning about consequences for teachers and students.


The commenter explicitly says "TAP VA is in full support" and adds that "Trans rights are human rights." They further state that Virginia schools should provide transgender and non-binary youth a safe environment, which clearly endorses the regulation's purpose.


The commenter explicitly states "STRONGLY OPPOSE!" and the title says "STRONGLY DISAGREE," which clearly indicates rejection of the regulation. No supporting or neutral language is present.


STRONGLY disagree!!! Protect children from the political chess game.

The commenter says they "strongly disagree" with children changing their gender association and explicitly asks to "Remove children from the political chess game," indicating opposition to the proposed transgender student policies. The language frames the regulation as harmful and inappropriate for children.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose these proposed policies" and "Completely oppose!" They argue the policies would conflict with science, morality, and faith, and call them "religious discrimination," all of which indicates rejection of the regulation.


Strongly support these protections for trans students

The commenter explicitly says they "strongly support its passing" and praises the guidance as a way to ensure "all students have a safe and equitable opportunity to learn and grow." They also state that "Trans students need extra protections and support," indicating clear approval of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly asks to "consider a new policy" that would use preferred names instead of "dead names" on school documents. They argue this would be more inclusive and would "help[] kids protect their own privacy," which supports the regulation’s transgender-student protections rather than opposing them.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support any VDOE guidance" and thanks VDOE for providing "this important document." They frame the policy as supporting "the mental health and basic rights of gender expansive students," indicating clear approval of adoption.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, saying "This madness has to stop" and "You should be put in jail for even suggesting this." They argue the regulation would harm girls in sports and locker rooms and repeatedly demand that officials "leave mine the hell alone," indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose the changes proposed in this document" and frames the policy as "unreasonable proposals." They also argue for only "case by case" accommodations, indicating opposition to the regulation as written rather than support for adoption.


The comment uses strongly condemnatory language toward the proposed policies, calling them "TOTAL INSANITY!!!" and implying rejection with "GOD SAVE US." It does not offer support or a neutral question, so the clear implication is opposition to the regulation.


As someone who works with children I wholeheartedly SUPPORT!

The commenter explicitly says they "wholeheartedly SUPPORT" the guidance and "wholeheartedly support this guidance." They also state it is "incredibly important for the support, health, and well-being of ALL students," which clearly endorses adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I 100% support policies to include and protect transgender students," which clearly endorses adoption of the regulation. The title also says "Support," reinforcing the positive position.


The commenter says "I disagree" and argues that schools should focus only on "reading, writing, and arithmetic," implying rejection of the transgender student policies. The statement "We have to draw a line somewhere" further signals opposition to the regulation's scope.


The commenter explicitly says the policies "need to be rejected" and calls for new ones to replace them. They argue the regulation "protects no one" and will be "weaponized against teachers and other students," indicating clear opposition to adoption as written.


Strongly opposed to this draft of policies for transgender student

The commenter explicitly says they are "Strongly opposed to this draft of policies" and argues the policies "will do more damage than good." They also list objections such as infringement on "parental rights, freedom of religion, privacy rights," indicating rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, saying "NO this is not right" and arguing the guidelines should not be "pushing this on others." They also say to "stop pushing this on others and creating more problems," which indicates opposition to adoption of the regulation as written.


The commenter explicitly says, "I highly oppose the model policies" and repeatedly urges, "DO NOT approve" and "OPPOSE." They object to the policies on grounds of parental rights, free speech, and alleged harm to students and detransitioners, indicating clear rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I fully support the implementation of anti-discrimination policies and practices into the VA school system" and praises the document as protecting trans youth. They also express approval of the guidance as creating "more inclusive spaces for all."


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose this regulation!!!" and the title also says "Joy not agenda I strongly oppose this law!" This is a clear rejection of the proposed policy.


The commenter explicitly says "Support strongly" and urges officials to "pass this proposal." They argue the guidelines "help to support and enrich the lives of trans and gender non conforming children" and that there is "No reason to hurt one group when you can pass this proposal."


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly disagree with this policy" and repeatedly calls it "wrong" and "utterly deplorable," asking officials to "send the message that this is wrong." The comment rejects the policy’s LGBTQ/transgender-related concepts rather than suggesting amendments.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do not approve of the proposed guidelines" and the title reads "STRONGLY OPPOSE!!" This is a clear rejection of the regulation, with the stated reason that it is based on "radical theories" and would "eradicate all distinctions between male and female."


In full support of the proposed guidelines to portect transgender students

The commenter explicitly says, "I fully support the proposed guidelines" and urges officials to "implement these vital guidelines." This is a clear endorsement of adoption, not a request for rejection or weakening.


The commenter says, "I strongly disagree" and rejects the premise that transgender identities should be recognized, stating "Promoting anything else is insane." This clearly indicates opposition to the proposed policies for transgender students.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support this much needed guidance" and thanks the people who wrote it. They also express approval of the policy goals, saying we should "support this fact" and that the guidance is a "fresh start" in educating people about gender identity.


This is a totally wrong policy for our children!!

The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, calling it "a totally wrong policy for our children!!" and arguing that "males should not be allowed in the locker rooms." The comment opposes transgender-inclusive treatment in schools and asks to keep sex-segregated sports and facilities.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do not approve of the proposed guidelines" and frames the policy as harmful. Their language about "radical theories" and "indoctrinate our school children" indicates rejection of the regulation rather than support or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly says, "My family fully supports this guidance" and frames it as promoting a "safe and welcoming" school environment. The comment endorses the policy’s goals of preventing shaming and bullying based on gender and other characteristics.


The commenter explicitly rejects the proposal, writing "Under no circumstances do I approve" and calling the guidelines "ABSOLUTELY NOT!!" They also describe the policies as "radical theories" that would "eradicate all distinctions between male and female," indicating clear opposition to adoption.


This is not a healthy influence to such a fundamental time for child development.

The commenter explicitly says the education system has "no place in the influence of a person's gender or identity" and urges schools to "Stick to teaching" instead of addressing transgender-related issues. The language rejects the regulation's subject matter and argues it should not be part of school policy or instruction.


SPEAKING AS A TEACHER AND PARENT, THIS IS WRONG!!

The commenter explicitly says, "I do not approve of the proposed guidelines" and calls them "wrong," which clearly rejects adoption of the regulation. The reference to "radical theories" and "indoctrinate our school children" indicates opposition to the policy itself rather than a request for changes.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Support Inclusivity in our Schools" and urges lawmakers to "support measures that create supportive learning environments for all students." The comment endorses the regulation’s goals of nondiscrimination, inclusion, and student safety.


Destructive Policy for students, parents and teachers

The commenter explicitly calls the proposal "destructive" and says it is "a socially harmful policy," indicating clear opposition to adoption. They also argue it should not be implemented because it "circumvents" parental rights, creates safety risks, and burdens teachers.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support the guidance in this document" and argues that schools should "make all students feel valued, included, and respected." They also describe the guidelines as "essential" for helping vulnerable students, indicating clear approval of adoption.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy with "Absolutely not" and calls it "the height of ridiculousness." They argue against "Allowing CHILDREN" to make decisions about sexuality and criticize "cutting families out," indicating clear opposition to the proposed transgender student policies.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose the proposed transgender guidelines," which directly rejects adoption of the regulation. The added concern about "not informing parents of what their child is going through" indicates opposition based on parental notification issues.


The commenter explicitly states, "I am in full support of this proposed policy" and says the policy is "based on best practices, research" and promotes "a more equitable and inclusive school community." The overall message is clearly an endorsement of adoption.


The commenter explicitly says they are in "strong support of the guidelines being put forth." They also endorse the policy goal by stating, "Every student should feel included and protected by our schools."


Former Public School Teacher saying good goal to protect ALL students-BUT NOT AT OTHERS' PERIL!

The commenter explicitly urges rejection of the proposal, saying "PLEASE DO NOT FALL FOR THE FOLLY!!!" and calling it a "targeted agenda" that should be reconsidered. They argue the policies would "endanger the majority" and create "forced accommodations," indicating opposition to adoption as written.


The commenter explicitly says "I support this guidance" and the title reads "strongly support." They also endorse the policy’s goals by saying children should have "a safe and welcoming" school environment.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support these changes" and adds that the protections for transgender students are "long overdue." They also express appreciation for the pronoun usage and thank the policymakers, indicating clear approval of the regulation.


WHY NOT JUST TEACH  LIKE YOUR PAID TO DO  AND KEEP POLITICS OUT OF SCHOOL

The commenter explicitly rejects the policy by calling it "GARBAGE" and saying to "KEEP THIS GARBAGE OUT OF THE SCHOOL ROOM." The phrase "KEEP POLITICS OUT OF SCHOOL" also indicates opposition to adopting the transgender student policies.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY OPPOSED THIS INSANITY!!!" and urges others to "STOP THE INSANITY," which clearly rejects the proposed transgender student policies. "SAVE OUR CHILDREN!" reinforces opposition rather than support or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly says the proposal is "detrimental to our kids" and asks the authors to "get mental help instead," indicating clear rejection of the regulation. The comment also mocks the policy with the "kid that identifies as a goat" example, showing opposition to the transgender student guidance.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose!!" and argues against "more oversight of students’ personal lives," indicating rejection of the proposed policies. The request to focus resources on "actually teach our children the basics" rather than sex-related issues further shows opposition to adoption.


Strongly support for the mental health of young people of all genders

The commenter explicitly says the proposal is "extremely important" and frames it as beneficial for "the mental health of young people of all genders." They also affirm "all youth, whether cisgender, questioning, or transgender and/or non-binary," which clearly supports adoption of the policy.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support the Model Policies for the Treatment of Transgender Students in Virginia Public Schools." This is a clear endorsement of adopting the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "This has my full support" and states that the policies are "essential to supporting our transgender youth." They also express approval of the guidance as a parent and school nurse, indicating clear endorsement of adoption.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY oppose" and ends with "DO NOT allow these polices to take place." They object to parental notification, pronoun requirements, privacy protections, bathroom access, and the lack of religious exemptions, all indicating rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "Absolutely oppose" and calls the policy "disgusting," which clearly indicates rejection of the regulation. The phrase "This plan to educate immorality" shows strong disapproval of the proposed transgender student policies.


These new policy proposals make no sense

The commenter says the policies are "way too broad," "make no sense," and "appear to intentionally keep parents out of the loop," which indicates clear opposition to adoption. They also argue schools should not decide things parents are "not allowing" and object to privacy provisions that would withhold information from parents.


I fully support the draft guidance provided by the VDOE

The commenter explicitly says, "I fully support the proposed language" and endorses the guidance as "a step closer" to a more equitable learning environment. They also state that "all students feel supported and safe," indicating approval of adoption.


Transgender pronouns agenda sent to students

The commenter explicitly asks that the policy be "REMOVED....CANCELLED.. taken DOWN... DELETED" and says it should not be in schools. This is a clear rejection of the proposed transgender student policies, framed as opposition "In the Name of our Almighty God."


Strongly Oppose - Sexual Identity Provisions Within Schools

The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Oppose" and repeatedly asks, "Please do not make provisions" that would expand the policy. They argue the regulation would reduce safety and parental involvement, citing concerns about bathroom access and confidentiality from parents.


Model treatment for transgender students

The comment explicitly rejects the policy with the phrase "Absolutely not," indicating clear opposition to adopting the regulation. No supporting reasons or qualifications are provided, but the stance is unambiguous.


The comment gives a clear rejection of the proposed regulation: "Absolutely not". It offers no supporting details or questions, but the phrasing strongly indicates the commenter does not want the policy adopted.


The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose the law" and later urges officials to "stand in opposition to this law." The stated reason is concern that pronoun use could lead to harassment or discrimination charges and discipline for teachers and students.


The commenter explicitly says, "Strongly opposed" and ends with "Please do not push for these policies." They argue the policies are inappropriate for schools and call accommodating transgender students "just plain child abuse," indicating clear rejection of the regulation.


As a parent of 3 in Virginia I strongly oppose.

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose" and repeats, "I oppose." They object to school administration "thinking they know better than parents" and call the policy "divisive and destructive," indicating rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support this guidance" and repeatedly argues for adopting it, including "Let us lift one another up." The rest of the comment provides reasons for support, such as protecting transgender and non-binary students from hostility and promoting a supportive environment.


The commenter explicitly says "Reject over reaching policy" and argues the Virginia Department of Education has "no right to infringe" on rights, privacy, and parental responsibility. They also object to bathroom and locker room provisions and say parents, not the government, should make decisions for their family.


The commenter explicitly titles the comment "Strongly Support" and says "Having these guidelines would help so many" and give students "the right to basic respect." The body consistently argues the policies would reduce harassment and discrimination against trans students in school.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY OPPOSED" and "Absolutely Not!" They argue the policy would "violate and interfere with parental rights" and create safety risks, including "bullying and rape in those bathrooms," indicating rejection of the regulation.


This is abhorrent and absolutely should not be allowed in a CHILDRENS environment.

The commenter explicitly says the policy is "abhorrent and absolutely should not be allowed" and asks rhetorically how officials can be so "moronic," indicating clear rejection of the regulation. The comment objects to pronoun accommodation and transgender-related school inclusion, including claims about "MINOR girls" and "boys and men."


TI stransgender policies proposed by the Virginia Department of Education.

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose the proposed transgender policies" and rejects the subject matter itself: "Transgenderism is NOT a topic for children or teens." This is a clear opposition to adoption of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, saying "Forget it!" and "I will no longer support the school system." They also argue it is "not their right to tell me how to parent" and threaten to "fight my taxes going to schools," indicating strong opposition to adoption.


This proposed transgender policy is irrational and completely bizarre. Bring back common sense!

The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, calling it "irrational and completely bizarre" and urging, "Let’s get back to common sense!" This is a clear expression that the regulation should not be adopted.


The commenter clearly rejects the policy, saying "This doesn’t help anything" and "It doesn’t answer any problems it only makes for more." The language is strongly critical of transgender support and the policy itself, indicating opposition to adoption.


I will never acknowledge such a human travesty

The commenter rejects the policy outright, calling it a "human travesty" and urging to "observe" "Natural law," which signals opposition to the transgender student policies. There is no language suggesting support or a neutral inquiry.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do NOT support this forceful over-reach" and "I strongly oppose this indoctrination process," which clearly rejects the proposed policies. The rest of the comment reinforces opposition by describing the regulation as "not natural" and an "immoral fringe."


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose!!" and calls the policy "a travesty," which clearly rejects adoption. They also object that it is "taking matters way too far beyond gender choice" and "eliminating parental guidance," indicating substantive opposition to the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly & Adamantly OPPOSE" and repeats that they "do not support such a thing as this immoral and illogical policy." The language clearly rejects the regulation rather than asking for changes or offering neutral input.


Objection to Gender Confusion Institutionalization in our Schools

The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, calling it "disturbing" and saying the proposed transgender policy is "another step in that direction." They argue against "codif[ying] policies that entrench gender confusion" and say schools should not be "enabling the confusion of the few to confuse the many."


Come on man - kids are failing and this is what you are focused on?

The commenter criticizes the regulation as a misplaced priority, saying "this is what you are focused on?" and urging officials to "Focus on the education of students" instead. The request to "Fix that problem" about students failing implies opposition to adopting this policy in favor of other concerns.


Support guidance to support transgender youth

The commenter explicitly asks to "Support guidance" and urges the state to "show some compassion" for transgender youth. They frame the policy as necessary to keep children and teens "safe and protected from discrimination and hate," which clearly endorses adoption of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly opposed to these transgender guidelines," which directly rejects the proposed regulation. The statement "Schools should support parents, not be parents" indicates opposition to the policy’s role in school handling of transgender students.


Let parents be parents and schools be schools.

The comment says "Parental rights matter" and urges, "Keep the school focused on education," which signals opposition to the transgender student policies as an inappropriate school role. It does not offer support or suggested improvements to the regulation, but instead frames the issue as schools overstepping into family matters.


Strongly Disagree - This is a priority with so many kids failing?? So so wrong...

The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Disagree" and repeatedly rejects the proposal as "So wrong," "STUPID," and "Not your job." They also argue it should be rejected because it excludes parents and is "social engineering," indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy with the title "No. No. No." and states "This will harm students and teachers." That language indicates they do not want the regulation adopted. The claim that "There are already adequate accommodations available" further suggests they believe the proposed guidance is unnecessary.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, saying "This policy endangers young girls" and arguing that allowing students to choose bathrooms and locker rooms "will only lead to a dangerous situation." The comment clearly opposes the regulation on safety grounds.


The commenter explicitly says, "I fully support the draft guidance provided by the VDOE for transgender students!" This is a clear endorsement of adopting the regulation as proposed.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly Oppose this!" and repeats "NO!". They argue the policy would "endanger the privacy and safety of all students" and "take away our parental rights," which clearly indicates rejection of the regulation.


Bigotry and Prejudice is alive and well in this town hall

The commenter explicitly says transgender children and young adults "need to be treated with dignity and respect in all regards," which aligns with adopting the proposed protections. The remark condemns opposition as "bigotry and prejudice," indicating support for the regulation’s goals rather than rejection of them.


Transgender oppression is not a "Family value" it's pure hate

The commenter explicitly endorses the policy, saying "This is long past due" and condemning those "opposing transgender equality." The language indicates clear approval of the regulation’s purpose and a desire for it to be adopted.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support this" and expresses approval of the policy. The phrase "wish this could have happened sooner" further indicates they want the regulation adopted.


The commenter explicitly endorses inclusion, stating, "Inclusive public school means a school for transgender children, too." This supports adopting the regulation’s transgender student protections rather than opposing them.


An outrageous usurpation of parent and human rights

The commenter explicitly rejects the policy as an "outrageous usurpation" and calls the regulations "grotesquely intrusive and unnatural." They argue against "forcing transgender orthodoxy on everyone" and say gender should align with sex, indicating opposition to adoption of the model policies.


The VDOE has gone far beyond the path the General Assembly prescribed.

The commenter explicitly says the VDOE "has gone far beyond the path the General Assembly prescribed" and argues the proposed policies "infringe the First Amendment rights of parents." They also reject key provisions by saying schools should not accommodate "irreversible 'gender transitions'" and object to shared facilities with transgender students.


Opposed to "draft model policies for the treatment of transgender students"

The commenter explicitly asks officials to "not pass these draft model policies" and repeatedly argues against them, saying they will "lead to stupendous abuses" and should be delayed for "study committees" instead of enactment. The overall thrust is rejection of the regulation as written.


The commenter explicitly says, "I am opposed to this draft" and urges, "Stop all this nonsense." They argue the policy would "influence our children" and "take away a parents rights," indicating rejection of the regulation.


This is a power grab and an insult to parents

The commenter explicitly says they "oppose these policies" and calls them "a power grab" and "an insult to parents." They argue the proposal would "endanger" their daughters and frame it as enforcing "gender ideology" in schools, indicating clear rejection of adoption.


The commenter explicitly states, "I support this guidance," which directly endorses adoption of the regulation. The title also says "Support," reinforcing the same position.


The commenter explicitly labels the submission "OPPOSED" and argues the model regulations "infringe on the First Amendment rights of parents." They also frame the policies as conflicting with "bodily privacy and dignity of ALL students," indicating rejection of the regulation as written.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Support" and urges adoption by stating "Times are changing and so must we." They also endorse the policy’s inclusive purpose: "We must teach our children to accept everyone regardless of their beliefs or gender."


The commenter argues that VDOE "should not disregard the role of parents" and says the policies are "alienating children" and "forcing children to make decisions they are not mature enough to understand." They explicitly urge the department to "Focus on their education" and leave these matters to parents, indicating opposition to the transgender student policies.


The commenter says the guidance's "separation of gender from biological sex" will be "detrimental to the learning environment," indicating rejection of the policy. They also argue it will worsen division and disadvantage public school students, which supports an oppositional stance rather than a request for modification.


Strongly Supported by a deeply conserned parent

The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Supported" and argues the policy is needed to protect "the civil rights for trans youth." The rest of the comment condemns opposition to the regulation as discriminatory, comparing it to segregation-era arguments.


The commenter explicitly praises the policies as "An excellent interpretation of the two bills" and says "These policies ensure" students are safe and free to be themselves. They also argue public schools "should support everyone" and reject opposition to the model policies.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do not approve of your proposed guidelines," which directly rejects the regulation. They also criticize it as based on "radical theories" that "eradicate all distinctions between male and female," indicating opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy with "NO TO ALL. OF. THIS.!!!!" and calls it "pure insanity" and "totally irresponsible." They object to children being allowed to "decide" their gender, indicating clear opposition to the transgender student policies.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY OPPOSED" and argues the VDOE "has gone far beyond the path the General Assembly prescribed." They also urge that schools should not accommodate the policies and claim they "infringe the First Amendment rights of parents," indicating clear rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I absolutely do not approve of these proposed guidelines!" and repeatedly argues they should not be adopted, calling them "state overreach" and saying they "destroy that family unit." The comment also lists harms it believes the policies would cause, including risks to girls, sports inequities, and undermining parental authority.


The commenter explicitly gives "Enthusiastic support" and says "Our children deserve all of the understanding and safety" and "ALL of our children," which clearly endorses the policy’s protective aims. The reference to "uninformed fearmongering" indicates agreement with the regulation and opposition to criticism of it.


The commenter explicitly states, "I support the guidance," and the title says "Strongly Support." This is a clear endorsement of adopting the regulation as proposed.


The commenter explicitly states, "I oppose this policy," which directly indicates rejection of the proposed regulation. No qualifying language or request for modification is provided.


Strongly opposed to pushing transgenderism opinions

The commenter says they "strongly oppose the measures" and repeatedly argues the policies should not be adopted, calling them "harmful" and beyond what the General Assembly prescribed. They also state the policies would drive them to withdraw their children from public schools, indicating clear opposition to the regulation.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, saying "I wholeheartedly object" and calling it "insane and inappropriate on all levels." The opening "Absolutely not!" and demand that children be "protected and kept innocent" indicate opposition to adoption of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "Do Not Support" and argues the VDOE has "gone far beyond the path the General Assembly prescribed." They oppose the policies because they believe schools should not allow transgender accommodations in intimate spaces and should not be "encouraging... irreversible 'gender transitions'."


The commenter says, "Very concerned about this change," which signals disapproval of the proposed regulation. Although they do not explicitly ask for rejection, the brief expression of concern indicates opposition rather than support or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly says "Absolutely Support!" and argues the policy is a "human rights issue." They also state that transgender people "deserve dignity and respect," which clearly endorses adoption of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly rejects the regulation, writing "NO!!!! I do not approve." This is a clear statement against adoption with no qualifying support or suggested changes.


The commenter explicitly says, "If VDOE approves the draft policies," they would "undercut parents’ involvement" and "endanger the bodily privacy and safety of all students," which indicates opposition to adoption. The title, "Do not undermine family rights, responsibilities and authority," further reinforces a rejection of the proposed policies.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy: "Absolutely NOT!!" and "Do not allow kids to do mistake that would ruin their lives for ever!!!" They argue against providing any transgender-related support in schools and call for parental notification and psychological evaluation instead, which indicates opposition to adoption of the regulation.


Opposition to HB 145 and SB 161 - protect children and parental rights

The commenter explicitly states "Opposition to HB 145 and SB 161" and argues the VDOE "has gone far beyond the path the General Assembly prescribed." They ask schools not to adopt policies that accommodate transgender students, saying the model regulations "infringe the First Amendment rights of parents" and should not encourage "gender transitions."


The title explicitly says "Oppose transgender policies by the Va. Department of Education," indicating rejection of the proposed guidance. The body frames gender identity as contrary to divine creation: "We are a product of God's creation. Not what we want to create ourselves to be," which supports opposition rather than approval.


re:  you're hurting transgender kids, and I hope you're held accountable

The commenter explicitly says they "oppose transgenderism" and argues the policy is "hurting these kids," indicating they want the transgender student policies rejected. The repeated framing of transgender identity as harmful and "a disorder" shows clear opposition to adoption of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose" and frames the policy as harmful: "This is dangerous for all." The phrase "Let parents be parents and schools be schools" indicates opposition to the regulation's role in schools.


The comment is explicitly titled "Opposed" and states, "We, the parents, will decide what is best for our children," which rejects the regulation’s approach and asserts parental control instead. This indicates the commenter wants the policy rejected or at least not imposed as written.


Safe environment for all - this is NOT it

The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, saying "this is NOT it" and arguing it would create a "chaotic non supporting environment for ALL." They also say "please just focus on teaching proper education" and that it is "not the responsibility of the government or school systems" to handle this, indicating opposition to adoption.


Proposed Transgender Public School Policy

The commenter describes a prior school policy for transgender students and says, "This policy worked successfully," indicating approval of a structured policy approach. Although they propose specific limitations such as "only unisex bathroom(s)" and exemption from sports, the overall comment supports adopting a policy with those features rather than rejecting regulation altogether.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly support" and argues that "Schools need guidance on this issue" and that a policy "will help to protect students." This clearly endorses adoption of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly opens with "Strongly oppose" and argues the policy is "not what we need." They object to allowing transgender students access to bathrooms and locker rooms, saying it would put children "at risk" and asking to "Please adjust the rules," which indicates opposition to the regulation as written.


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


The commenter explicitly titles the comment "Strongly Support" and repeatedly endorses the policy, saying "All students have the right to attend school where they can learn in a safe environment" and urging to "Protect those students." The language about "Model acceptance and recognition of differences" clearly favors adoption of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "Opposed to the bill" and argues it "goes against the right to choose our own children's education" and "freedom of religion." They frame compliance for religious schools as an infringement on parental and faith-based rights, indicating rejection of the regulation.


Opposed to the New Transgender Policy Proposals by the Virginia Dept. of Education

The commenter explicitly says, "I am opposed to the transgender policy proposals" and argues they "undermine[] parents rights" and may weaken "privacy and safety." The final sentence asks for answers "before the regulatory process goes further," indicating rejection of the proposal as written.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Oppose" and calls the policy "terrible." They argue it violates "parents rights" and "freedom of religion," and object to "forcing transgender ideology as a blanket rule across schools."


The commenter explicitly says, "Strongly support" and calls the model policies "excellent." They also argue that transgender students "deserve to feel heard and safe at school" and that the policies would make kids "feel safer" and more supported, which clearly endorses adoption.


STRONGLY SUPPORT — these are human rights

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support this bill" and urges others to "allow EVERY kid" to have access to the policy's protections and information. The comment argues in favor of LGBTQ+ inclusion and accommodation in schools, indicating clear support for adoption.