Stop School Administration from Indoctrinating Children with transgender policies

The commenter explicitly objects to the policy as "indoctrinating children with transgender policies" and asks that parents be allowed to withdraw children from related materials and activities. They argue such topics should come "from the family only" and that schools should stick to core academics, indicating opposition to adoption of the regulation.


Strongly opposed - New DOE guidelines for transgender students

The commenter explicitly says "Strongly opposed" and argues the policy "allows for the watering down of what constitutes abuse" and "strips parents of their rights." They conclude that it will create "serious subjectivity and bias" and "tie the hands of parents," indicating rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Opposed" and argues the policy would "force others to play their charade" and "go along with something they don't believe in." They ask to allow use of first or last names instead of pronouns, indicating rejection of the regulation's pronoun-related protections.


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

The commenter explicitly says, "I would like to offer my support for the Model Policies" and describes the document as promoting "a safe and inclusive school environment." They also recommend strengthening it by requiring "annual training related to LGBTQ+ issues" for all school staff, which indicates approval with a suggested enhancement rather than opposition.


I strongly oppose the proposed transgender policy for public schools!

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose the Virginia DOE Proposed Transgender School Policies" and repeatedly argues the policies should not be adopted. They claim the policies would harm other students, violate religious freedom, and create costly legal and budget burdens, all of which support an oppositional stance.


The commenter explicitly says, "Strongly oppose this policy" and asks, "Please do not sign onto this bill." They argue it is not a subject for schools and should be left to parents, indicating rejection of the regulation rather than support with changes.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose transgender policies in Virginia schools!" and argues the policies are "damaging to teach gender confusion to minors." This is a clear rejection of the proposed regulation.


The commenter rejects the premise of the policy by stating, "Gender is biological" and that "Neither words, policies, laws nor medical intervention can change that." This clearly signals opposition to adopting guidance that recognizes or accommodates transgender students.


The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose this policy" and argues against it on parental rights and child welfare grounds. They also describe the policies as "detrimental" and claim they cause "psychological damage," indicating clear rejection rather than a request for modification.


The commenter explicitly says it would be "great for the trans students to have their safety and be free for who they are" and states that they "really needs that bills to pass." This is a clear endorsement of the proposed policies.


Home Schooling Available; Parents ARE the main educator of their children.  Look into home school...

The commenter rejects the proposed policies by urging families to choose homeschooling instead of “accepting a curriculum that is 'unacceptable' to the parent(s).” The reference to voting for less “progressive” administrators also signals opposition to the regulation’s underlying approach.


The commenter explicitly says, "I STRONGLY OPPOSE the proposed model policy" and repeatedly argues it should not be enacted. They describe it as "radical," "anti-family," and "extreme and harmful," and claim it threatens free speech and religion, indicating clear rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy as "mandatory promotion of politicized, sexualized ideology" and calls it "child abuse," indicating clear opposition to adoption. They also object to specific provisions such as bathroom/locker room access and lack of parental notification, saying it is an "utter violation" of privacy and parental rights.


The commenter explicitly calls the policy "severely misguided" and says "this is not a logical solution," indicating rejection of the regulation. Although they acknowledge that bullying and abuse should not be tolerated, they frame the proposed policy as harmful: it "puts everyone in a vulnerable position."


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose" and argues the policy "goes far beyond" support for trans students, calling it "mandatory promotion" of ideology. They also object to bathroom/locker room access and lack of parental notification, concluding it is an "utter violation" of privacy and parental rights.


The commenter rejects the policy’s premise, calling transgender-related guidance "leftist crackpot theories" and "fraudulent information," and says it is "destructive to children, families, religious beliefs, and society." The closing command "Follow the science stupid!" is used to argue against adoption of the regulation.


I am vehemently opposed to DOE proposed transgender school policy

The commenter explicitly says, "I am vehemently opposed to the DOE proposed transgender school policy" and urges, "Stop government overreach." They also frame the policy as unconstitutional and a threat to "parental rights," indicating clear rejection of adoption.


The commenter says, "I wholly and completely oppose this proposed DOE proposed policy" and explicitly urges officials to "vote against this policy." They argue it "undermines the parents as the primary source of care and leadership" and object to policies they believe "encourage secrecy or force a view on all students."


The commenter explicitly says the policy "could of really really helped me" and that their "high school life would of been a lot easier if this has been in place," which clearly endorses adoption. They describe serious harm from being outed and imply the regulation would protect students in similar situations.


The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose this document," and argues against its approach by saying, "Let's not confuse children" and "Two facailities for two genders." This indicates rejection of the proposed transgender student policies rather than support or a neutral inquiry.


The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose the proposed transgender policies to take place in public schools." They also argue that "Parents should be allowed to intervene as needed," indicating opposition to the policy as written.


The commenter explicitly says, "Strongly oppose this bill," which clearly indicates rejection of the proposed regulation. No supporting or qualifying language is provided.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose" and rejects the policy being discussed. They argue schools should only teach core subjects and that the school has "absolutely no right" to impose beliefs on their children, indicating opposition to the regulation.


The comment explicitly says "NOT SUPPORT" twice, which clearly indicates opposition to adopting the regulation. It provides no additional reasoning or qualifications.


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


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose" and argues the policy "takes away parents rights to seek counseling" for students with gender dysphoria. They also reject the premise of the guidance, saying "'Conversion therapy' does not exist" and that the science is "very shoddy and one-sided."


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Support!!!" and adds "Protect all trans kids!" indicating clear approval of the regulation and its purpose. There is no language suggesting opposition or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly says, "Strongly oppose! I strongly oppose this policy" and asks, "Do not take away the rights" of boys and girls, indicating rejection of the regulation. The concerns focus on restroom/changing room access and sports fairness, which are framed as reasons to oppose adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support this," which directly endorses the proposed policies. They also add, "All students should feel safe while at school," reinforcing approval of the regulation's safety and inclusion goals.


The commenter explicitly says "Absolutely and strongly SUPPORT!" and repeatedly endorses the guidance as "long overdue" and "a very important step." They also explain that the policies would help address discrimination, privacy, and bathroom access issues for transgender students.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose" and repeats "No No No," which clearly indicates rejection of the proposed regulation. There is no qualifying language suggesting support or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support this policy!" and adds that "this should be implemented every where," which clearly endorses adoption. There is no opposing language or ambiguity.


The commenter explicitly says, "I am definitely opposed" and thinks it "should NOT be passed." They argue the policy would create safety risks, limit parental notification, and conflict with religious beliefs, all indicating rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose" and adds "for the safety of our children I strongly oppose," indicating clear rejection of the proposed policies. The safety framing suggests concern that the regulation would be harmful rather than supportive.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY OPPOSE!" and argues schools should not "push this nonsense on our children," indicating rejection of the regulation. They also object to the bathroom/locker room policy and say "Let the parents parent their children," which reinforces opposition to the guidance.


The commenter explicitly states, "I oppose," which directly indicates opposition to the proposed regulation. The title also says "Oppose," reinforcing that position.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose" and argues the policy will have "detrimental effects" and "put many girls at risk of sexual assault." The final question about protecting "our daughters" indicates they want the regulation rejected on safety grounds.


The commenter explicitly titles the comment "Support" and says "this is exactly the type of evidence based public policy I want to see implemented in my community." This clearly endorses adoption of the regulation, while the criticism of "the opposition" does not change the supportive stance.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Disagree" and urges officials to "reconsider," calling the policy "a disgrace." They oppose the guidance on religious grounds, parental rights, and bathroom access, and prefer transgender students be handled "case by case" rather than through the proposed policy.


The commenter explicitly says the policy "goes too far" and "will create more problems than it solves," which indicates opposition to adoption. The objection about "Menstrual products should not be in the boys bathroom" shows disagreement with a specific provision of the transgender student policy.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly support" and states that "Trans students should be supported and protected from bullying and harassment." They also say the policies "seem like a step in the right direction," indicating approval of adoption.


The commenter explicitly calls the proposal "shocked, grieved and frightened" and says it would make schools "dangerous." They argue against the policy by claiming it prioritizes students over parents and creates risk in bathrooms and changing rooms, indicating clear opposition to adoption.


Strongly oppose this is not a civil rights issue this is privilege

The commenter explicitly says, "Strongly oppose" and asks, "Please stop," which clearly rejects the regulation. The statement that "This is not a civil rights issue" and calling it an "anti-science move" further indicates opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support trans youth," and describes the need for schools to be safer and more comfortable for an LGBTQ+ student. The comment emphasizes bullying, bathroom access, and the desire that "all students deserve to feel safe at school," which aligns with supporting the proposed protections.


NO SUPPORT. What next...any thing goes for pedophiles?

The commenter explicitly says "NO SUPPORT" and asks to "throw away this garbage legislation," which clearly rejects the regulation. The reference to "Outrageous!" reinforces that they want it rejected rather than amended.


The commenter explicitly endorses the policy with the title "Support Trans Kids!" and the body "Protect Trans Lives!". This is a clear call for adoption of the regulation and support for its goals.


The commenter explicitly calls the policy "Transgender mandates" and says they "obviate the role of parents" and that the state does not have the right to use tax dollars to override objections. This is a clear rejection of the proposed regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support!" and adds "i believe in equality !" which clearly endorses the proposed policies. There is no language indicating opposition or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly opposed!" and frames the policy as a bathroom safety threat: "not wondering who might be peeking at them in the bathroom." This indicates clear opposition to the regulation.


The comment explicitly says "Oppose" in both the title and body, indicating a clear rejection of the proposed regulation. No qualifying language or request for modification is provided.


The commenter rejects the policy by asking, "Why disregard science, that is - biology!" This frames the regulation as contrary to biology and indicates opposition to adopting the transgender student policies.


The commenter explicitly says, "we can not support this bill as written" and asks, "Please don't overreach," indicating opposition to adoption in its current form. They also object to "taking away parent's rights," "forcing these topics on young children," and concerns about restrooms/locker rooms, which shows they want the policy rejected or substantially changed.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose this bill!" and repeatedly argues it should not be passed, calling it "ludicrous legislation" and "insanity." The rationale centers on alleged harms to girls and women, Title IX, and sports participation, all framed as reasons to reject the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY OPPOSE!!!!!" and asks to "Stop this insane transgender nonsense!" They argue the proposal will hurt "women's sports programs" because "Biological males will be competing against us women," indicating rejection of the regulation.


The commenter clearly endorses protections for transgender/non-binary students, stating that "someone’s identity is not an opinion" and that "everyone has the right to a bathroom." The comment describes harm from misgendering and discomfort using the girls bathroom, which aligns with support for the proposed policies.


Opposing the "Model policies for the treatment of transgender students in VAPS

The commenter explicitly says, "I'm opposed to the policies in this document" and concludes, "I am opposed to the whole policy." They object to restroom/locker room access and the rule that educators/administrators cannot question students, arguing it will be abused and make students unsafe.


The commenter explicitly says "Opposed to this proposal" and rejects the regulation as a "government mandate." The statement that "Parents are responsible for caring for their children" indicates opposition to state involvement in this policy.


The commenter explicitly states, "Absolutely support this bill," which is a clear endorsement of the regulation. The title "Support Support" reinforces that the commenter wants it adopted.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy with "Absolutely NOT" and says they are "beyond upset this is even being considered." They argue against transgender students using bathrooms/locker rooms and against the policy on sports, privacy, and parental rights, indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "Strongly support this!" and adds that the organization "strongly supports this." This is a clear endorsement of adopting the regulation.


The commenter says the policy "goes waaay too far" and is "too restrictive," and explicitly asks to "rewrite this" to preserve "freedom for ALL." Although they support respecting transgender children and preventing bullying, their overall position is against the policy as written.


The commenter explicitly titles the submission "Strongly Oppose" and objects to the policy’s implications for locker room access, asking, "What about the other students who will be uncomfortable" if a transgender girl is changing with them. This indicates opposition to adopting the regulation as written.


The commenter explicitly states "Oppose" and "Opposed to this," which clearly indicates rejection of the proposed regulation. No supporting reasons or qualifications are provided.


The commenter explicitly says "strongly support" and argues the policy "should be passed" to provide "equal protections for marginalized groups." This is clear approval of adopting the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Oppose" and objects to "those rights to be allowed by our government," indicating rejection of the proposed transgender student policies. No supportive or neutral language appears.


Absolutely NO to transgenders going into bathrooms if the opposite sex.

The commenter explicitly says "I am absolutely opposed" and argues against "boys being allowed in girls locker rooms and bathrooms." They also demand a separate facility: "Give the transgenders their own bathroom," indicating rejection of the proposed policy's treatment of transgender students.


The commenter explicitly says "Absolutely OPPOSE this!" which directly rejects the regulation. The phrase "Against every moral and family value" reinforces that they want it rejected on value-based grounds.


The commenter explicitly says, "strongly supports this effort," which is a clear endorsement of the proposed policies. The title also states "Strongly support," reinforcing the same position.


The commenter explicitly says, "I fervently oppose adopting this policy," which directly states opposition to the regulation. Although they express support for treating transgender people with love, they reject "any of these actions" in the policy and call it a "slippery slope."


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY OPPOSE" and rejects the policy on religious grounds, stating "God made man and woman." This indicates clear opposition to adopting the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "PROTECT OUR TRANS KIDS" and "Please protect our children!" which aligns with supporting policies that safeguard transgender students. There is no language opposing the regulation or asking to weaken it.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Oppose Transgender Policy" and calls the policy "wrong". They object to schools "go[ing] behind a parents back" and "try[ing] to convince an innocent child," indicating they want the regulation rejected.


The commenter explicitly condemns the policy, calling it a "human rights offense" and saying it would "propagandize children with the transgender ideology." This is a clear rejection of the proposed guidance rather than support or a neutral inquiry.


I strongly oppose transgenderism being encouraged in schools. It is damaging to all exposed.

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose transgenderism being encouraged in schools" and argues the policy is "damaging." They reject transgender-inclusive school practices, including privacy, bathroom access, and school involvement, saying "Everything else needs to be addressed by the parents and not the school or teacher."


The comment explicitly says "Strongly disagree" and then "no," which clearly indicates rejection of the proposed regulation. It provides no supporting details or qualifications, but the stance is unambiguous.


The commenter explicitly states, "I strongly oppose this proposal," which directly indicates rejection of the regulation. No supporting or qualifying language is provided.


The commenter explicitly says "very strongly opposed!!" and pleads, "PLEASE do not do this!!!!" This is a clear rejection of the proposed regulation with no supporting conditions or questions.


The commenter explicitly says, "I absolutely oppose adopting this agenda," which directly rejects the proposed policies. The phrase "It is wrong for the state and the country" reinforces opposition rather than offering neutral feedback or support with changes.


The commenter explicitly says "Adamantly oppose" and argues the policy is "completely outrageous." They claim it violates "free speech and freedom of religion" and object to children and parents being targeted for their beliefs, indicating rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "In Support" and states they "firmly believe" the proposal's "well-researched and evidence based positions" would "improve outcomes for all students." They also describe personal benefits if such policies had been in place, indicating clear approval of adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support protecting transgender students at all Virginia schools!!" This is a clear endorsement of the proposed policies and their protective aims.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Oppose" and lists multiple objections to the proposed regulations. They argue the rules "overreach," "endanger the safety of students," "infringe on parental rights," and conflict with "traditional religious beliefs," all of which indicate rejection of the policy.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support this proposal" and urges, "You have our support in passing it and in implementing it." The comment also argues the policy is needed to protect trans students' access to bathrooms, locker rooms, and chosen names/pronouns.


The commenter explicitly says, "I absolutely oppose adopting this agenda," which directly rejects the regulation. The follow-up, "It is wrong for the state and the country," reinforces opposition rather than offering neutral feedback or support with changes.


The commenter explicitly says "Oppose!!!!" and calls the policies "awful" and "This is not what our kids need!" They also reject school involvement in gender identity support, saying "These are conversations for parents!"


The commenter explicitly says "I strongly oppose" and repeatedly expresses fear that the policy would expose children to sexualized or confusing ideas. Phrases like "I don't want my children returning to me sexulized" and "I don't want my kids playing doctor with other kids today" indicate rejection of the regulation's approach to transgender students.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy with "No way" and says "I am amazed that anyone would condone this," indicating opposition to adoption. They argue it violates "parental rights and religious freedoms" and call it "indoctrination," showing they want the regulation rejected rather than amended.


In support of Transgender rights and protective policies

The commenter explicitly says, "I am in support of any and all states who support transgender rights and provide protective policies" and thanks the forum for educating people on "the need for equality to ALL people." This clearly endorses the proposed transgender student protections.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose the proposals put forth," which directly rejects the regulation. They also argue it would be "very divisive and unfair," and suggest it should instead be handled through a referendum, indicating they do not want the policy adopted in its current form.


The comment explicitly states "Strongly OPPOSE," which is a clear rejection of the proposed regulation. No supporting reasons or qualifications are provided, but the stance is unambiguous.


The commenter explicitly says, "I vehemently oppose and disagree with this Transgender policy," which is a direct rejection of the regulation. Calling it "state sanctioned child abuse" further shows strong opposition rather than a request for modification.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose this policy" and argues it should "not be forced upon our children." They object to transgender accommodations in privacy-sensitive spaces and athletics, saying it is "wrong" to have children "coexist" and "compete against one another."


The commenter explicitly says, "Transgender programs DO NOT belong in the public education system" and calls the policy "RECKLESS," which clearly rejects the regulation. They also argue against transgender participation in sports, saying "transgender males should never compete against females in sports," reinforcing opposition to the policy's provisions.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose the proposed transgender policy" and closes with "Please don't implement this policy." They argue it should be rejected because of parental consent concerns, bathroom/locker room access, and girls' sports impacts.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Support" and repeatedly urges passage: "This being passed will make trans students feel like they are seen as real people" and "I am hoping to see this bill passed." They also reject common objections, including religious opposition, indicating clear support for adoption.


The commenter explicitly says "i disagree!" and argues against the policy’s effects, objecting to children "sharing a bathroom" and to being "scared to get in trouble for calling someone he/she instead they/them." They also say money spent on this is "crazy," indicating they do not want the regulation adopted.


The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose," which directly states their position against the regulation. They also argue it will "cause more problems than it would solve" and invoke "the safety of all children," indicating rejection based on perceived harms.


The commenter explicitly says the policies are "totally unworkable" and that carrying them out "is impossible," indicating rejection of the regulation. They also argue it would force staff to act against their "fundamental beliefs" and place an "undue burden on the educational system," which is a clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly appose" (oppose) and adds the dismissive phrase "Simply abnormal," indicating rejection of the proposed transgender student policies. There is no request for modification or support for adoption.


The commenter repeatedly rejects the policy as "absolutely insane," says "Forcing these rules/topics/beliefs is so wrong," and states that if it is allowed their child and others will not attend public school. They argue the regulation will increase bullying and sexual assault and insist "We have two genders," indicating clear opposition to the transgender student policies.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Oppose" and argues schools should not be "denying physical facts and ignoring reality," which indicates rejection of the proposed transgender student policies. The final sentence about doing otherwise being "a disservice to all children" reinforces opposition rather than support for adoption.


The commenter explicitly says "Do NOT take away our parental rights!!" and "STOP your cowardice," indicating opposition to the proposed transgender student policies. The language rejects accommodating transgender students, referring to them as "less than 1% of the population who are gender-confused."


The commenter explicitly states "STRONGLY Oppose!!!!" which directly indicates rejection of the proposed regulation. No other substantive content is provided to suggest a different interpretation.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose" and argues the policy "creates division between parents and students." They also object to student decision-making power and express concern about restroom and locker room access, indicating rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose" and argues the policy is "outrageous" and "against God's design." They also state that implementation would "result in government mandated promotion of gender confusion," indicating clear rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says the proposal is "devastating" and calls it "fundamentally flawed," then urges the Board to "revise the proposed model to correct" it. The comment argues the policy violates parental rights, free speech, and equal protection, and claims it would create an unsafe environment, all of which indicate opposition to adoption as written.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY SUPPORT THIS VITAL POLICY!" and repeatedly urges adoption, including "Please put this policy in place" and "This policy can make a difference in preventing harm to our children." The body frames the regulation as necessary to protect transgender youth from discrimination, harassment, and mental health harms.


The commenter explicitly says "Oppose" and states "This bill has no place in the Virginia school system," indicating clear rejection of the regulation. The language "This is a travesty" and "This is nonsense" further reinforces opposition, and the comment argues it would "open[] up the door for sexual assault."


The commenter explicitly states, "I strongly oppose" and repeats "Strongly oppose," which clearly indicates rejection of the proposed regulation. There is no qualifying language suggesting support or neutrality.


Transgender in Schools and women’s Sport

The commenter explicitly says, "I total against this transgender in school" and argues against bathroom, locker room, and sports inclusion. They frame the policy as harmful, claiming "Woman sports will die" and that women will "lose everything they have fought for," indicating clear opposition to the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says they are "strongly opposed" and closes with "Please do not pass this legislation." They argue the policy is harmful, citing concerns about bathrooms, locker rooms, overnight trips, and sports fairness as reasons to reject it.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY OPPOSE!" to the proposed transgender student policies. They also reject inclusive bathroom access by insisting that students should use bathrooms based on anatomy or a separate "OTHER" bathroom, which is contrary to the regulation's protections.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support the protection of all children, gender aside," which clearly endorses the regulation’s protective aims. The title "STRONGLY SUPPORT" further confirms approval of the proposed policies.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose this policy," and argues against allowing students to identify differently from their birth sex, use opposite-sex restrooms/locker rooms, or compete in girls' sports. They also state that "School authority should not trump parental authority," indicating rejection of the regulation's approach.


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


The commenter explicitly says, "100% support this" and urges officials to "pass this bill into law." They also argue the policy is needed to protect trans and non-binary kids, indicating clear approval of adoption.


Strongly oppose. Distracts from real education. Leave our schools alone.

The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose" and urges, "Leave our schools alone" and "Leave our children alone," indicating rejection of the regulation. The body also calls the policy "unscientific" and "unconstitutional," reinforcing opposition rather than support or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly states, "Strongly opposed to this measure," which clearly indicates rejection of the proposed regulation. The title, "Strongly OPPOSED!!," reinforces the same position.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose" and argues the policy is "psychologically damaging to all children involved." They also say children are "too young to see or make decisions that will alter their lives forever," indicating rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "Very opposed!" and expresses being "disturbed by many points in this document." They object to a specific provision about disciplinary action for not using a transgender child's preferred pronoun, indicating rejection of the policy.


The commenter explicitly says, "WE STRONGLY OPPOSE" and argues the policy "will promote harassment" and is "in violation of the right to freedom of religion." Although they affirm that children should be protected from harassment, the overall position is clearly against adoption of the regulation.


The comment explicitly says "NO Strongly Oppose" and "ABSOLUTELY NOT," which clearly rejects the proposed regulation. There is no qualifying language suggesting support or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly says, "Strongly oppose government over reach" and "Our family strongly opposes this ridiculous policy." They argue the policy is "government directing and regulating families" and object to school personnel "teach[ing], 'advise,' or influence" their children without parental awareness.


Strongly Oppose this proposed enforcement

The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Oppose" and repeatedly rejects the policy, arguing schools have "absolutely no right" to discuss these issues and saying "No thanks." The comment frames the proposal as harmful and an "agenda" that should not be adopted.


In support of this document and in support of transgender students!

The commenter explicitly says, "I support this Guidance Document" and repeatedly urges statewide guidance "in support of evidence-based best practices for inclusion and support of trans and other queer students." The comment frames the policy as necessary for equity and student well-being, not as something to reject or weaken.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose this idea," which directly indicates rejection of the proposed regulation. No supporting or neutral language is provided.


The commenter explicitly says the policy "should be rejected" and repeats that it should be rejected unless "significantly revised." They argue it goes "way beyond prevention" and would impose "politicized, sexualized ideology," indicating opposition to adoption as written.


The commenter explicitly says "Absolutely Against" and argues the policy would allow a boy into the girls' bathroom, calling the rules dangerous and threatening legal action. They also object that the policy would override "my parental authority," indicating rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose" and asks, "Please do NOT implement these changes." This is a clear rejection of the proposed regulation rather than a request for modification.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY OPPOSE," which clearly indicates rejection of the proposed regulation. The word "absurd" reinforces a negative judgment rather than support or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly says, "Do not pass this bill" and "Keep boys and girls separate," which clearly rejects the proposed transgender student policies. The phrase "follow the science!" is used as a justification for opposition rather than support.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support state guidance documents such as this" and describes the policies as a positive baseline that "affirm the diverse range students' identities" and "increase access" to education services. This indicates clear approval of adopting the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do not support this policy," and argues against adoption by claiming it is confusing, not aligned with "biology and science," and harmful to bathroom, locker room, and girls' sports settings. The final sentence, "you can not infringe on the rights of so many," reinforces opposition to the policy as written.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly AGAINST!" and calls the policy "ridiculous," "garbage," and "junk," indicating clear opposition to adoption. They also reject the underlying premise, stating "You are either a boy or a girl" and saying they would "NEVER let my children be exposed to this."


The commenter explicitly says they are "Vehemently against proposed trans guidelines" and warns that if they "pass" they would "wreak havoc" on schools. The body repeatedly argues the guidelines would harm trans kids, parents, teachers, and the school system, indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support" and "I strongly support the protection of trans children and their rights." This clearly endorses adoption of the regulation and its protections for transgender students.


The commenter explicitly urges action in favor of the policy: "TRANS RIGHTS ARE HUMAN RIGHTS! Protect and support our Trans children!!!!!" They also say children "deserve to be treated with respect" and "protected and supported," which aligns with adopting the transgender student protections.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Support. Absolutely. YES." and adds "Protect Trans Youth," which clearly endorses the regulation’s purpose. There is no language indicating opposition or neutrality.


is wrong with all? Trans rights are human rights dumbos

The commenter clearly endorses transgender rights and criticizes opposition to them, saying "Trans rights are human rights" and urging others to "let trans people do theyre thing." This indicates support for the regulation’s transgender-inclusive policies, even though the language is highly insulting.


OPPOSE The VA Dept of Education teaching children their sex is a choice

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose the Va Dept of Education's intent" and frames the policy as "teaching children their sex is a choice." This is a clear rejection of the proposed transgender student policies.


The commenter explicitly calls it a "Horrible proposal" and says "Do not take away a parent’s right to be a parent," indicating opposition to the regulation. The repeated emphasis on parental authority and government overreach shows they want the policy rejected or substantially changed.


Strongly support transgenders rights, at school and beyond.

The commenter explicitly says, "I support all guidance that recognize and implement transgender students’ rights" and endorses guidance "written to create a healthy environment for them at school." The comment repeatedly affirms transgender rights and argues that schools should accept and support transgender students.


Support Trans Youth! They need us. Help them be themselves. Support happiness.

The commenter explicitly urges approval of the policy, repeating phrases like "Support Trans Youth!" and "Trans youth need our support in this." They also argue that the policy helps youth feel accepted and safe, saying it prevents them from feeling "rejected, ousted and alone."


Stop Transgender Indoctrination in VA Schools

The commenter explicitly says, "Our family opposes this policy," and frames it as harmful government overreach. They also reject the stated rationale for the policy, calling it "another example" of the family unit being undermined and warning that it is "much deeper."


The commenter explicitly rejects the premise of the policy, saying they "disagree with the concept of someone being able to change their birth gender" and calling it a "fiction." They argue transgender people should not be regarded as their desired gender and call for separate facilities, which indicates opposition to the regulation's protections and accommodations.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly opposed" and "Do NOT adopt any of these policies in our schools." They also argue the policies are "absolutely unacceptable" and should not be implemented, indicating clear opposition to adoption.


Strongly oppose these policies! Children need to be taught to accept who they were born to be!

The commenter explicitly says, "Strongly oppose these policies!" and repeatedly argues against the guidance, saying "Don't push the opposite into the schools!" They object to the underlying premise and claim children should be taught to "accept who they were born to be," indicating rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "SUPPORT & PROTECT TRANS/GNC KIDS!! STRONGLY SUPPORT!" and argues that "policies like this are necessary." They clearly endorse the regulation as a way to protect trans students and make schools safe.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly support protecting the rights of trans kids" and endorses the policies as "literally saving lives." This clearly indicates approval of the regulation and its protections for transgender students.


The commenter explicitly rejects the proposal, saying "No" and "I don’t think this is good." This indicates opposition to adopting the regulation, though no specific reasons are provided.


The commenter explicitly labels the policy "Strongly Opposed" and argues that "parents have no rights to know what's going on" and should not allow children to make "profound, life-altering decisions" without parental involvement. This is a clear rejection of the proposed guidance.


The commenter explicitly says "Absolutely Oppose!" and "This absolutely can not be allowed into our schools," indicating clear rejection of the proposed policies. They argue the regulation "endangers the safety of our girls" and object to allowing students to use bathrooms of their "choice."


The commenter explicitly states, "I support this guidance," which directly endorses adoption of the regulation. The preceding sentence about schools being "a safe, accepting, and loving environment" reinforces that supportive position.


The commenter strongly endorses transgender rights and, by implication, the proposed policies, saying "trans rights is where it's at!!!!!!" and criticizing those who would not accept a transgender child. Although the language is abusive, the substantive position is clearly in favor of the regulation's goals.


The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose" and criticizes the policy for removing "parents and legal guardians in any part of the conversation." This indicates they want the regulation rejected or substantially changed to restore parental involvement.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose" and "This is NOT okay!" indicating clear rejection of the proposed policies. The phrase "The government is definitely overreaching here" further shows opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY OPPOSE!!!" and "I strongly disagree with this," indicating clear rejection of the proposed policies. The rest of the comment reinforces opposition by calling it "sickening" and an "ungodly act."


The commenter explicitly says, "I support trans youth!" which clearly endorses the policy direction of the regulation. There is no language indicating opposition, neutrality, or a request for changes.


The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose this bill," and argues that it "oversteps the bounds of education" by limiting parental and religious involvement. The comment frames the policy as interfering with how children form identity, indicating rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY OPPOSE TRANS IN SCHOOLS POLICY" and argues the policy "defies both science and parental rights." They conclude it is "fundamentally detrimental" to children, indicating clear rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Support" and states that "Transgender children deserve a safe, accommodating school environment!" This clearly endorses adopting the regulation and its protections for transgender students.


The commenter explicitly says "support it" and "please support this!" and frames the issue as "trans rights are human rights," indicating clear approval of the regulation. The repeated emphasis in the title and body leaves little ambiguity.


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


The commenter explicitly labels the proposal "Dangerous" and says "This is dangerous on so many levels!!!" which indicates strong opposition to adopting the regulation. No supportive or neutral language appears.


The commenter explicitly says "Very Strongly Oppose" and states it is "strongly against the Bible," indicating rejection of the regulation. They also object to what children will be taught and call it "modern foolishness," which reinforces opposition rather than a request for changes.


The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose this" unless schools build single unisex restrooms, and repeatedly argues against key parts of the policy. They object to restroom access, transgender inclusion in schools, and sex-separate sports, indicating opposition to the regulation as written.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly and without any reservation oppose the model" and argues it should not pass. They also say the policy would be an overstep and threaten to pull children from public schools if it is adopted.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support these model policies" and praises them for being written "to protect our children in Virginia public schools." This is a clear endorsement of adoption.


The commenter explicitly says "Wholeheartedly, Strongly OPPOSE" and repeats "I am greatly opposed" to the proposition. The body expresses strong disapproval of the regulation without offering support or neutral feedback.


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


The comment explicitly says "Protect trans youth!!" which clearly endorses the regulation’s purpose of supporting transgender students. It offers no criticism or request to weaken the policy, only a direct call for protection.


The commenter explicitly says, "This legislation would do worlds to support and protect them" and calls it "a massive step towards equality for all students." The comment clearly endorses the proposed policies and urges adoption: "Listen to the kids."


The commenter explicitly says, "I support this well-researched and evidence-based proposal" and urges support for "ALL students, including trans and nonbinary youth." This is a clear endorsement of adopting the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly disagree to this!" and states "If this falls into motion I will take my children out of public schools," which clearly rejects the regulation. They also argue it is "not fair" and express fear about girls sharing a restroom with transgender students, indicating opposition to the policy's bathroom provisions.


The comment explicitly says "support trans youth," which clearly endorses the regulation’s purpose of protecting transgender students. It offers no criticism or conditions, indicating straightforward approval.


The comment explicitly endorses the policy’s underlying purpose with the statement "TRANS RIGHTS ARE HUMAN RIGHTS," which is a clear pro-trans rights position. It does not request changes or raise objections, so it supports adoption of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I am adamantly opposed to the model policies" and argues they "undermine the role of parents" and allow children to "transgender" without parental knowledge. The comment also criticizes the policy-development process and invokes religious objections, all indicating rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Support!" and states that "Setting these standards to promote safe and healthy learning conditions is vital." They also add that "the positive consequences outweigh the negative," indicating approval of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Support" and states "We need to protect our trans students and affirm their identities," which clearly endorses adoption of the policy. The comment also frames the regulation as beneficial for "mental health and academic performance" and "to save lives," indicating strong approval rather than any opposition or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly labels the proposal "Strongly Opposed" and repeatedly argues that schools and government "do not have the authority to parent the children" and that passing it would be a "clear usurpation of power." They also say it violates parental rights and religious freedom, and object to "Teaching same-sex marriage and transgenderism."


The comment gives an explicit rejection of the policy: the title says "No" and the body says "absolutely not." This is a clear opposition to adopting the regulation.


NEVER ENDING SUPPORT TO PROTECT TRANS CHILDREN

The commenter explicitly gives "STRONG, NEVER ENDING SUPPORT FOR TRANS LIVES" and says children should be protected "for being themselves." This clearly endorses the regulation’s goal of protecting transgender students and opposing discrimination.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support this measure!" and argues that Virginia must "protect trans students" and grant them "full protections under the law." The rest of the comment reinforces approval of the policy’s protective aims.


I OPPOSE - this violates religious freedoms & parental rights

The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose this law" and repeatedly argues against the regulation as "unconstitutional" and a violation of "religious freedoms & parental rights." They also object to children making decisions without parental consent and warn against the policy's broader consequences, indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose" and repeatedly argues against the policy, saying the state is "inserting itself between a child and the parent/family" and urging, "Hopefully here and now" to stop it. The comment frames the proposal as harmful, intrusive, and contrary to "basic biological facts," indicating clear rejection of the regulation.


It's not bathrooms; it's locker rooms & showers

The commenter rejects the policy’s treatment of transgender students in sex-segregated spaces, stating that "No child should be forced to share showers, locker rooms, hotel rooms or other intimate settings" with someone of the "opposite biological sex." This indicates opposition to the regulation as written, especially on facilities and privacy issues.


The commenter explicitly says, "I am totally against this being put in our public school systems," and argues against allowing transgender students to use restrooms and locker rooms aligned with their gender identity. They also object to the policy on "parents right" grounds, saying it should not be "taken from them."


TRANS RIGHTS ARE HUMAN RIGHTS TRANS RIGHTS ARE HUMAN RIGHTS TRANS RIGHTS ARE HUMAN RIGHTS

The comment explicitly endorses transgender rights with the repeated slogan "TRANS RIGHTS ARE HUMAN RIGHTS," which aligns with supporting the regulation’s protections for transgender students. Although it includes an insult toward opponents, it does not ask to weaken or reject the policy.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy as "terrible" and says "do not allow males in female bathrooms or females in male bathrooms," indicating opposition to the transgender student guidance. They also argue it is "not safe for children" and call on officials to "quit being part of the progressive, liberal agenda," which reinforces a clear anti-policy stance.


The comment does not clearly state support or opposition to the proposed transgender student policies. "Prayers for our schools" and "Pray this doesn’t happened" express concern, but they do not specify whether the commenter wants the regulation adopted, rejected, or changed.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, calling it a "social experiment" and saying to "Stop" it. They argue the ideas are "falsehoods" and describe the policy as harmful to children, indicating clear opposition to adoption.


Transgender students deserve respect and dignity

The commenter explicitly endorses the guidance, saying "these guidelines make that clear" and arguing that "Every student deserves respect, dignity, privacy, and freedom from discrimination." The comment describes harmful treatment of transgender students and supports the policies as a needed response.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Support" and argues that the policy is needed to "protect trans kids in our education system." They also cite evidence about pronoun respect and suicide prevention, indicating approval of the regulation's goals and implementation.


The comment is a direct rejection of the proposed regulation: the title says "No" and the body says "absolutely not." This clearly indicates the commenter does not want the policy adopted.


Stop sexualizing children/ they’re going to do things in locker rooms stop demonizing trans children

The commenter appears to endorse protections for transgender students, explicitly saying "TRANS LIVES MATTER" and criticizing those who would "demoniz[e] trans children." Although the comment is hostile and mentions locker rooms, the overall thrust is supportive of the regulation’s aim to protect trans students rather than reject it.


The commenter explicitly says, "I am strongly opposed to gender promotion within the public schools" and calls it a "significant violation of parental rights." They also state that exposure of their child to this topic is "unacceptable" and describe the policy as "deplorable," indicating clear rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly argues against the policy, saying it will "ruin schools" and referring to it as an "idiotic law" that should not go through. They object to transgender students using facilities and frame the policy as harmful to children and contrary to their values.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support the proposed bill" and adds that it is "important to protect LGBT Youth." This is a clear endorsement of the regulation's adoption.


strongly opposed to transgender indoctrination

The commenter explicitly says, "I call upon the government of the Commonwealth of Virginia to reject this and any similar program" and describes the guidance as "transgender indoctrination" and "transgender propaganda." The comment argues the policy should not be adopted because it conflicts with "binary biological sex" and promotes "gender deconstruction."


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose," which directly states opposition to the regulation. The follow-up phrase "This is wrong in so many ways" reinforces a negative judgment and rejection of the policy.


The commenter explicitly says, "I completely disagree with the transgender agenda" and calls the policy "perverted to allow this to pass," which clearly indicates opposition to adoption. The comment also frames the regulation as "immoral" and "against God’s laws," reinforcing a rejection of the proposed guidance.


The commenter explicitly endorses affirming transgender students, stating that "Nobody else should get to determine another human being's body, identity, or basic dignity" and that "Our kids deserve love and support." This clearly supports the proposed policies rather than opposing them.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose" and adds "This shouldn’t even be considered," which clearly rejects the regulation. The phrase "this is wrong in so many ways" reinforces opposition rather than offering support or a neutral question.


The commenter explicitly defends transgender students, saying "Trans children deserve to be protected," which indicates support for the regulation’s protective aims. The rest of the comment attacks opponents for "demonizing trans children," reinforcing that the commenter wants the policy adopted rather than rejected.


Supopoart Trans Students, who are STUDENTS just like other students

The commenter explicitly says, "Please support trans students" and repeats that their needs "should be addressed." They also endorse "INCLUSION not EXCLUSION," indicating clear approval of the proposed policies for transgender students.


The commenter explicitly says "Totally opposed!!" and argues the policy is "putting our children at great risk." They object to "Boys allowed in girls bathrooms and locker rooms" and say "Removing parents from this equation is WRONG!"


The commenter explicitly labels the submission "Oppose" and says "this is not the way to gain it," referring to the proposed policies. They argue that "Parents should have rights" and that the rights of many groups have been ignored, indicating rejection of the regulation as written.


The commenter explicitly says, "Strongly support!" and "I strongly support this effort." They also explain that the policies are "vital to protect these kids' right and need to be themselves, free from harassment and discrimination," which clearly endorses adoption.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy with hostile language: "Stop corrupting our children!" and frames transgender inclusion as "immorality." The question "Now please tell me why?" is rhetorical and does not indicate support for the regulation.


I am in support of Trans and non binary children attending public schools in VA

The commenter explicitly says, "I am in support" of the proposed guidelines and wants "Trans and non binary children to be included in public schools." This is a clear endorsement of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says they are "writing to support protections for transgender and non-binary students" and states that "These protections are crucial." They also argue the policies help create "a positive learning environment" and make safety a reality for all students.


The commenter argues that children should not be involved in this issue, saying they should be allowed to be children and not be "pushed into grown folk business." The comparison to adult decisions like "joining the military or smoking cigarettes or drinking alcohol" indicates opposition to the transgender student policies as applied to minors.


Strongly Oppose Guidance Policy on Treatment of Transgender

The commenter explicitly says, "I vehemently and passionately oppose this Guidance Policy" and calls it "offensive and unconstitutional." They argue it tramples "Parental prerogative and authority," violates "religious freedom," and amounts to "government over-reach," all of which indicate clear opposition to adoption.


No. Take your children out of indoctrination camps aka schools.

The commenter explicitly rejects the policy with "No" and says "This isn’t something children need to learn in school," indicating opposition to adoption. The language "sick agenda" and urging parents to "take your children out" further shows they want the policy rejected and schools avoided.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose transgender guidelines," which directly rejects the proposed regulation. The closing "Respectfully" does not change the clear opposition.


All “concerned” parents are bigoted trash support trans lives

The comment explicitly says "support trans lives," which clearly endorses the regulation’s transgender-student protections. The phrase "All 'concerned' parents are bigoted trash" is hostile toward opponents, but it does not change the commenter’s pro-regulation position.


The commenter explicitly says, "Absolutely do not agree with this new legislation" and frames the policy as dangerous, stating it is "putting innocent children at risk." They also threaten to homeschool if it goes into effect, which indicates clear opposition rather than a request for changes.


The commenter explicitly says, "Strongly support this policy," which directly endorses adoption. The rest of the comment reinforces approval by rejecting objections about religious rights and invoking "love thy neighbor."


The commenter explicitly says, "Please enact the guidelines to protect the rights of transgender youth" and "Strongly support the rights of transgender youth." They also argue the policy should be adopted despite objections about "parental rights or religious freedom," indicating clear support for the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says the VDOE has "gone far beyond the path the General Assembly prescribed" and argues the model regulations "infringe the First Amendment rights of parents." They also state schools should not accommodate these policies and object to sharing intimate facilities with transgender students, indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "Do not intrude on parent's rights," which indicates opposition to the proposed transgender student policies as written. The comment does not ask for changes or support adoption; it objects to the regulation on parental rights grounds.


The commenter explicitly says "Absolutely oppose immoral transgender policies" and argues schools should not "accommodate" the proposed guidance. They also call the policies "immoral, asinine" and say Virginia has "no right" to force them on parents, indicating clear rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose the regulations" and gives a reason for rejecting them. The stated concern that it "intrudes on parents' rights to raise their children" indicates opposition to adoption of the policy.


Children are BORN with gender identity.Asking them to choose causes psychological confusion

The commenter explicitly rejects the proposed policies, saying the VDOE has "gone far beyond the path the General Assembly prescribed" and that schools should not accommodate "gender transitions." They argue the policies infringe parental rights and threaten privacy, indicating opposition to adoption of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support the model policies for the treatment of transgender students." They also state that the policies will "help create a safer and more inclusive environment for students," which reinforces approval of adoption.


Oppose VDOE transgender policies devloped under  HB 145/SB 161

The commenter explicitly says "Oppose VDOE transgender policies" and argues the policies "force schools to implement a severely flawed transgender ideology." They also reject the underlying framework as contrary to "the basic nature of mankind, as created by God," indicating opposition to adoption of the regulation.


The commenter says, "I am in strong opposition to this measure" and explicitly rejects "this, or any other policy in relation." They also object on religious and moral grounds, indicating they do not want the regulation adopted.


The commenter explicitly says, "Do not support this policy" and argues the VDOE has "gone far beyond" what the General Assembly prescribed. They also state the policies "infringe the First Amendment rights of parents" and should not accommodate gender transitions, indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "What you are doing is the very essence of an unjust law" and argues it "goes against the laws of nature and God," which clearly rejects the proposed transgender policies. The quotation from MLK is used to condemn the regulation rather than support it.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support any legislation that will protect the rights of trans individuals" and adds that "State guidelines will help teachers make the right decision." This clearly endorses adoption of the proposed policies, with no opposing language.


The commenter explicitly says, "Absolutely oppose this immoral policy," which is a direct rejection of the proposed regulation. The word "immoral" indicates they are not merely asking for changes but opposing adoption outright.


The commenter explicitly urges officials to "Desist from efforts to Mandate Transgender Procedures," which clearly rejects the proposed policies. The reference to "Natural law and God's law" and criticism of "liberal pundits" further indicates opposition to adopting the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "Please oppose this bill!" which directly rejects the regulation. The statement that it "will do great harm to Virginia schools" reinforces opposition rather than support or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly states, "I oppose these policies," which directly indicates rejection of the proposed regulation. The title "Transgender rulles" provides no mitigating context or support for adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose the proposed regulations" and repeats that the Department of Education should not "subsum[e] the role of parents." They also object to taxpayer spending on "gender-based supplies" and argue the policies have "grave impact" on the next generation, all indicating rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose the normalization of transgender anything," which clearly rejects the proposed policies. The religious framing and dismissal of targeted anti-bullying protections further indicate opposition rather than a request for modification.


The commenter says the policies "infringe the first amendment rights of parents" and that VDOE "has gone far beyond" the General Assembly guidance, which indicates rejection of the proposed regulation. The statement that the views are "opposed by many voters" also signals disapproval rather than support or neutrality.


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


Completely in support of supporting trans kids

The commenter says they are "wholeheartedly in favor" of the "Model Policies for the Treatment of Transgender Students in Virginia Public Schools" and argues that schools should create an environment where students are "secure" and "safe." They explicitly reject efforts to deny transgender students these rights and ask others to "get out of the way" of implementation.


Virginia must not disregard the role of parents in public education.

The commenter argues that Virginia "must not disregard the role of parents" and says the policy would "undercut parents’ involvement" and "endanger the bodily privacy and safety of all students." This is a clear objection to the proposed transgender student policies and indicates the commenter wants them rejected or substantially changed.


Is the VA Dept of Education going bonkers?

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose everything" and urges the department to "Get working on important issues instead of stupid stuff like this." They also reject the policy as part of a "radical transgender overzealous push," indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy as "absurdity on a new level" and says Virginia should not "usurp parental rights" or allow "boys and girls to share locker rooms." They argue the policies are "anti-science" and leave "no room for disagreement," indicating clear opposition to adoption.


If VDOE approves the draft policies, they would undercut parents’ involvement in the life of their c

The commenter explicitly argues that if VDOE approves the draft policies, they would "undercut parents’ involvement" and "endanger the bodily privacy and safety of all students." They also say the policies "go far beyond the path the General Assembly prescribed" and "infringe the First Amendment rights of parents," indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says "ABSOLUTELY OPPOSE!" and argues the schools should "focus on teaching HISTORY, ENGLISH, MATH AND SCIENCE" instead of this policy. The phrase "let parents do their jobs at home regarding sexuality" indicates rejection of the transgender-student guidance and a preference to keep such matters out of school policy.


If VDOE approves the draft policies, they would undercut parents’ involvement i

The commenter explicitly says the draft policies would "undercut parents’ involvement," "endanger the bodily privacy and safety of all students," and "infringe the First Amendment rights of parents." They argue schools should not adopt policies that allow transgender accommodations in intimate spaces and say the Department has "gone far beyond the path the General Assembly prescribed."


The draft policies would undercut parents’ involvement in the life of their children at school

The commenter explicitly argues that VDOE should not approve the draft policies, saying they would "undercut parents’ involvement" and "endanger the bodily privacy and safety of all students." The comment repeatedly criticizes the policies as beyond the General Assembly’s intent and says they "infringe the First Amendment rights of parents," indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says "DO NOT APPROVE THESE POLICIES" and argues the proposed policies "infringe the First Amendment rights of parents" and should not be used to "encourage irreversible 'gender transitions'." They also object to shared facilities with transgender students, indicating clear opposition to adoption of the regulation.


Trans Guidelines Hurt Girls, Women and Lesbians

The commenter repeatedly urges rejection of the policy, saying "Stop encouraging" the underlying ideas and asserting "Your guidelines will allow" harmful outcomes. The body frames the regulation as harmful to women, lesbians, and children, and calls it "nonsense" and a "eugenic crime against humanity," indicating clear opposition.


The commenter says the proposed policies "are far different from those of many parents" and that VDOE "has gone far beyond the path the General Assembly prescribed," which clearly اعتراضs to adoption of the policies as written. The reference to a specific statement being endorsed as a "blanket endorsement" indicates disapproval of the regulation's substance rather than a request for minor edits.


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


Let the Parents Discuss Gender Issues with their Children

The commenter says the regulation "infringe[s] the First Amendment rights of parents" and asks to "let the parents or church leaders teach" children instead of the school. This clearly rejects the model policies and frames them as government-imposed beliefs.


The commenter explicitly says they are "Opposed to transgender regulations proposed by DOE" and concludes "Opposed for the 3 reasons stated above." They argue the policies are harmful and "infringe the First Amendment rights of parents," indicating rejection of the regulation rather than support or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly says, "VDOE should NOT approve" the policies and ends with "Oppose these proposals immediately." They argue the policies "give special accommodations" and "infringe upon" parents' rights, indicating clear rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, calling it "totally wrong," "unacceptable," and asking, "Please do not go down this path." They also argue against specific elements such as bathroom access and lack of parental control, indicating opposition to adoption.


The commenter states plainly, "I oppose this plan," which directly expresses rejection of the proposed regulation. The title also says "Oppose," reinforcing the same position.


Disapproval of gender policies in school

The commenter explicitly says the policies are "way too extreme" and argues they give children "too much liberty," indicating disapproval of the regulation. Although they support anti-bullying and inclusivity in general, the overall thrust is that these specific policies should not be adopted as written.


The commenter explicitly says, "I'm opposed to these changes," which directly rejects the proposed policies. The follow-up question about having "a public discussion first" reinforces that they do not want adoption at this time.


The commenter rejects the premise of the policy by stating, "God made us male or female and we can’t change it" and "he didn’t make 2 in 1," which clearly opposes recognition of transgender students. The comment provides a religiously framed objection rather than support for the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose" and the title reads "Strongly oppose transgender policy." They argue the policies go "far beyond the path the General Assembly prescribed" and should not accommodate transgender students in schools.


Opposed to changes in transgender policy

The commenter explicitly says, "Opposed to these changes," which clearly indicates rejection of the proposed policy. The request to "have a big discussion first" suggests they do not want the regulation adopted in its current form without further debate.


The commenter explicitly says "Oppose transgender policies in public schools," which directly rejects the proposed regulation. The phrase "Let parents parent their children" indicates opposition to school policies on transgender students and a preference for parental control instead.


The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose this legislation," which directly states opposition to adoption. The rationale given is that it "infringes on the rights of parents and students," indicating a substantive objection to the policy.


The commenter explicitly labels the submission "OPPOSE" and says "Stop corrupting and indoctrinating our children," which clearly rejects the proposed transgender student policies. The language indicates a desire to block the regulation rather than amend it.


The commenter explicitly says, "I am opposed to this bill," and objects to the policy's privacy provisions, especially that schools should "not disclose a student’s gender identity to other students or parents." They argue parents "MUST be informed" and that the policy would be harmful, indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says the policies "should NOT be implemented" and argues they are "counterintuitive to parental authority." The overall message rejects the regulation and frames it as improper "thought policing" and an overreach by schools.


The commenter explicitly states "Reasons for opposing transgender policies" and argues the proposed policies should not be adopted. They object to shared facilities and overnight accommodations, saying the policies would "pit children against their parents," which indicates clear opposition rather than a neutral or supportive comment.


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

The commenter explicitly says the VDOE "SHOULD NOT" proceed and asks to "Protect children and parental rights in public schools," indicating opposition to the proposed policies. The comment also objects to the policies as undermining "parents’ involvement" and endangering "bodily privacy and safety," which signals rejection rather than support or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Oppose Transgender Policies" and argues schools should not be "accommodating" these policies. They also say the regulations "infringe the First Amendment rights of parents," indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose the new transgender policies" and argues the change should not be imposed. They cite "religious and moral grounds," claim it will cause harm, and object to bathroom/locker room access and parental rights implications, all indicating opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly states "Oppose this," which directly indicates opposition to adopting the regulation. No additional context or qualifications are provided.


The commenter explicitly says, "I fully support the implementation of this guidance document." This is a clear endorsement of adopting the regulation as proposed.


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


The commenter explicitly says, "I fully support this document" and explains that the policy would help transgender students avoid the discrimination, anxiety, and administrative barriers they experienced. They conclude by wanting "transgender students in Virginia to not have to face the anxiety and disappointment I did," which clearly endorses adoption of the regulation.


The commenter clearly rejects the policy, calling it "disgusting" and saying it is "attempt[ing] to break down the laws of nature and religion." The statement that the nation should be "upholding these laws" rather than "tearing them down" indicates opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "Do not approve this policy" and repeats that "This policy is wrong." They argue it would make school "impossible for a normal child to attend," indicating clear rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose this draft of trans policies" and urges that it be revised rather than adopted as written. The body repeatedly criticizes the proposal as "problematic to impossible," raises objections to pronoun enforcement, parental notification, restroom access, and lack of religious accommodations.


treatment of transgender students in public elementary and secondary schools

The commenter explicitly says, "Please oppose these proposed policy changes presented in HB 145 and SB 161," which directly rejects the regulation. No supporting language or request for modification is included.


The commenter explicitly praises the policy as "an amazing step forward" and says it is "a great policy" that will help transgender students feel safe. This is clear approval of adopting the regulation.


I oppose Transgendered policies in public school.

The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose Transgendered policies in public school," which directly rejects the proposed regulation. They further argue that children should be told they are "either male or female" and that "Lying to our children is never the right answer," indicating opposition to the policy's transgender-supportive framework.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly OPPOSED!" and argues that the proposed policies would force students to share "showers, locker rooms, hotel rooms or other intimate settings" with transgender students. They also call the regulations an infringement on their "First Amendment rights as a parent," indicating clear rejection of the proposal.


The commenter explicitly says, "Oppose this bill for the protection of the children," which clearly rejects the regulation. The religious justification, "God created them male and female. Period," reinforces opposition to transgender-related policies.


The comment explicitly states "Opposed" and repeats "Opposed," indicating a clear rejection of the proposed regulation. It provides no supporting details or qualifications suggesting any partial support.


The commenter explicitly labels the submission "Opposed" and says it is "not the duty of the school system to impose specific views and beliefs on their students," which indicates rejection of the proposed policies. The comment does not suggest amendments; it objects to the regulation’s premise.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, saying "This stuff has to stop," which indicates opposition to adoption. The phrase "for the security of our children" frames the comment as a reason to oppose the regulation rather than support it.


The commenter explicitly states "fully support," which directly endorses adoption of the proposed regulation. There is no qualifying language or criticism.


The commenter explicitly labels the submission "Opposed" and argues that "Parents, not the schools/school board/Dept of Ed, is responsible for the raising of their children," which rejects the regulation’s school involvement. The statement that children are "immature" and that schools should not determine "who they are" indicates opposition to the transgender student policies.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy on religious grounds, stating that "Transgenderism is against God's Will" and asserting that "God made them Male or Female." This indicates opposition to adopting the transgender student policies.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY OPPOSE" and adds that "these policies take it too far," indicating rejection of the regulation. Although they begin with "ALL children should be treated with respect," the overall message is against adoption of the policies.


The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose this policy," which directly states opposition to adoption. The follow-up, "Parents are the first caregivers and educators of their children," suggests a parental-rights objection to the guidance.


The commenter explicitly states, "I OPPOSE TRANSGENDERISM," which is a direct rejection of the policy’s subject matter. No supporting or neutral language appears.


The commenter explicitly says, "I hope the state adopts these policies" and frames the document as deserving approval: "Fully Support These New Guidelines." They also argue transgender students "deserve as much protection as all other students," indicating clear endorsement of adoption.


Oppose legislation that opposes parental rights

The commenter explicitly says, "Please oppose this bill" and describes it as "harmful to children, families, and teachers." They are asking that the regulation not be adopted because it would "disrupt" teachers' ability to focus on teaching.


The commenter explicitly says, "Reject this misguided nonsense," referring to the transgender student policies. The rest of the comment rejects the premise of the regulation, stating "Girls are girls and boys are boys" and calling anything else "intentionally harmful."


The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose restrictions to parent's rights," and argues against schools facilitating gender exploration without parental knowledge or consent. They also reject key aspects of the policy, including transgender-related bathroom access and dress-code flexibility, indicating opposition to the regulation as written.


The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose these transgender student policies," and argues they are "impractical" and would "conflict with their own fundamental beliefs." They also warn the policies would be disruptive and cause parents to withdraw students, indicating rejection of adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose transgender policies," which directly rejects the proposed regulation. The repeated wording leaves little ambiguity about their position.


The commenter argues the policy "does not protect the rights of ALL children" and repeatedly questions allowing transgender students access to facilities, indicating opposition to the regulation as written. They also emphasize that "Parents should be the only ones that make all decisions" and warn against "discriminat[ing] one group for the benefits of the other," which signals a desire to reject or substantially weaken the policy.


The commenter explicitly says "Oppose transgender policies" and argues the policies would "undercut parents’ involvement" and "endanger the bodily privacy and safety of all students." This is a clear rejection of the proposed regulation.


Against the transgender guidance in schools

The commenter explicitly says, "I'm opposed to anything involved with the transgender changes including language," which clearly rejects the proposed guidance. The rest of the comment reinforces opposition by arguing that gender is fixed by God and condemning the policy as contrary to that belief.


These Policies Are an Egregious Overreach of State Power

The commenter explicitly says, "I am writing strongly to oppose the model policies." They also argue the policies are an "egregious overreach of state power" and "usurp the First Amendment rights of parents," indicating clear rejection of the regulation.


Harming our youth through gender confusion/distortion/manipulation

The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, saying schools should "in no way support this mutilation and twisted distortion" and asks, "Why are you supporting this?" The comment argues the regulation is harmful and urges officials to "Get back to truth. Come back to God," indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do not approve of this!" and "It goes against everything I believe in!" This is a clear rejection of the proposed transgender student policies and indicates they do not want the regulation adopted.


The commenter explicitly says, "I object" and argues the policy "will do more harm than good." They further claim it will "lead to an increase in the number of cases of sexual assault," indicating opposition to adoption of the regulation.


The commenter rejects school involvement in transgender-related matters, stating that "Schools do not have any right to control this" and urging them to "EDUCATE NOT DICTATE!!!" This indicates opposition to the proposed policies rather than support for them.


The commenter explicitly thanks the policy as "life saving guidelines" and says it addresses harms faced by trans people in public schools. This is clear approval of the regulation as proposed.


The commenter explicitly says the VDOE "has gone far beyond the path the General Assembly prescribed" and that "This policy goes beyond the roles of state government," indicating opposition to adoption. They also argue it "infringes on the roles of parents" and object to shared intimate spaces, showing they want the policy rejected or substantially weakened.


Do Not approve Policy/ uphold children's dignity

The commenter explicitly says "Do Not approve Policy" and argues the VDOE has "gone far beyond the path the General Assembly prescribed." They also urge schools not to accommodate the policies and claim they infringe parental rights, indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support the model policies" and concludes that "These model policies should be adopted by public schools." The comment argues the policies protect transgender and gender creative children and promote a discrimination-free environment.


The commenter explicitly says, "I am strongly opposed to this proposal" and argues that "this transgender ideology needs to stay out of schools." Although they mention support for counseling resources, that is presented as an alternative to the proposal rather than support for it.


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

The commenter explicitly says, "I fully support the Model Policies for the Treatment of Transgender Students in Virginia’s Public Schools." They also endorse a specific provision, "removing the gender marking on all forms where it is not necessary," indicating approval of the regulation and its approach.


Transgender regulations proposed by VA Department of Education

The commenter explicitly argues that schools "should not be accommodating" the policy and objects to transgender inclusion in intimate facilities. Phrases like "No child should be forced to share showers, locker rooms, hotel rooms" and criticism of "irreversible 'gender transitions'" indicate rejection of the proposed regulations.


The commenter explicitly says "I Support this!" and follows with "Approve," which clearly indicates approval of the proposed regulation. There is no qualifying language or objection.


The commenter explicitly states "Opposed to this policy" and repeats "Opposed to this policy," which clearly indicates rejection of the proposed regulation. No supporting reasons or qualifications are provided.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support inclusion regardless of sexual orientation," which indicates approval of the policy’s inclusive treatment of transgender students. Although the comment mentions sexual orientation rather than gender identity, the overall message is supportive of the regulation’s inclusion goals.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose this legislation" and repeatedly urges rejection: "Don't make the other children suffer" and "Vote what is right!" The reasons given are objections to parental rights, pronoun use, and bathroom/changing room access for transgender students.


Model polices regarding transgender students

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly disagree with the VDOE model polices regarding the treatment of transgender students," which clearly indicates opposition to adopting the regulation. No mitigating language or request for changes is provided.


OPPOSED to the policies in this guidance document.

The commenter explicitly says, "I am opposed to the policies in this document." They also argue against adoption by citing concerns about "the safety and bodily privacy of our students" and "the parental rights of their parents."


The commenter explicitly says "Oppose" and argues that "the VDOE should not disregard the role of parents in public education," indicating they do not want the policy adopted as written. The comment raises a parental rights objection rather than supporting the regulation with changes.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support this document" and argues it protects "all children's rights to a healthy educational environment." They further endorse equal participation and dignity for transgender students, saying they should not be made to feel "less worthy of participating in society."


The epitome of Inhumanity = abortion of  on display

The comment uses hostile language toward the policy and the people it concerns, calling them "Disordered Minds" and framing the issue as "The epitome of Inhumanity." This strongly indicates rejection of the transgender student policies rather than support or neutrality.


The epitome of Inhumanity = abortion of the Mind on display

The comment uses derogatory language toward transgender people and the policy, calling them "Disordered Minds" and framing the issue as "The epitome of Inhumanity." This strongly indicates rejection of the proposed transgender student policies rather than support or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly says, "DO NOT SUPPORT" and "Recommend this not be adopted." The body repeatedly argues the policies would harm parents, privacy, safety, and religious freedom, indicating clear opposition to adoption.


Do not agree; protect children and don't deny parental involvement in our children's lives

The commenter explicitly says, "I do not approve of their proposed guidelines" and argues the policies are based on "radical theories" that would "eradicate all distinctions between male and female." The title also asks to "protect children and don't deny parental involvement," indicating rejection of the regulation as written.


The commenter explicitly says, "Full, 100% support the guidance!" which directly endorses adoption of the regulation. They also state it is "absolutely necessary to protect our trans and non-binary youth," reinforcing clear support for the policy's purpose.


Good intention taken too far, which will cause significant damage

The commenter explicitly says the proposal "contains significant danger" and "has no business here," indicating rejection of the regulation. They also frame it as an "extreme view" that will "cause extreme damage," and argue schools should "NEVER come in between the parents and their children."


Fully Support  the draft guidance provided by the VDOE.

The commenter explicitly says, "Fully support!" and endorses the draft guidance from VDOE. They also explain why, stating that "All LGBTQ+ children should feel safe and supported especially in school," which clearly favors adoption of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support the guidelines" and adds support for "schools supporting transgender students." This is a clear endorsement of adopting the regulation as proposed.


I oppose all that is against natural affections as outlined by God and our forefathers

The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose" the policy and rejects transgender inclusion as "not how we were created." They also object to it being "pushed on innocent children," indicating opposition to adoption of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, calling it "indoctrination of falsehoods" and "unscientific, unhealthy, damaging." They argue against the underlying transgender framework and say the proposed teaching is "garbage," indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says they are "completely against this indoctrination" and argues the state has "no right" to require these transgender guidelines. They also urge schools to "stick to teaching true history, reading, writing and mathematics," indicating rejection of the regulation.


Transgender indoctrination of our children

The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, calling it "absolutely ridiculous" and saying "You shouldn't legislate something different" or "force it to be taught in our schools." They also object to consequences for noncompliance, indicating opposition to adoption of the regulation.


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


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


I am strongly opposed to this initiative

The commenter explicitly says, "I do not approve of this proposal" and repeatedly calls it "reprehensible" and says it "should be trashed." The body argues against multiple provisions, including parental notification, bathroom/changing room access, dress codes, and religious accommodations, all in opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly labels the comment "SUPPORT" and urges the policy direction by saying "Believing and supporting all kids, especially, trans kids is vital" and that a healthy school environment helps them learn and thrive. The statement advocates for respect and inclusion for transgender students, which aligns with adopting the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I fully support the guidance" and emphasizes that it is "so important to provide an inclusive educational environment." The rest of the comment reinforces approval by describing transgender and non-binary students as deserving "a positive school experience."


The commenter explicitly says, "I do not agree with this at all," and rejects key parts of the policy, especially allowing transgender students to use bathrooms/locker rooms aligned with their gender identity: "their born gender should be what rest room or locker room they use." Although they say students should not be harassed, the overall position is to oppose the regulation's core protections and accommodations.


The commenter explicitly says "DO NOT SUPPORT" and calls the policies "totally unworkable." They argue the proposal would "force all students, faculty, and administrators to comply" with a view they reject, indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly calls the proposed policies "ridiculous," "discriminatory and unenforceable," and says the scenario "would totally be supported by these policies," indicating clear rejection. The comment argues the policies would allow abuse of gender identity claims and harm girls' access to showers and complaints.


Note almost all supporting are women / gay men = EMOTION, not fact/mind based

The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, calling it an "insanely damaging 'policy'" and saying "Stop doing this with our tax dollars!" They argue it is "destructive" and should not be supported, which clearly indicates opposition to adoption.


This policy is outrageous and harmful to students and families!

The commenter explicitly condemns the policy as "outrageous and harmful," calling it "a travesty" and saying "all common sense and ethical standards have been thrown out the window." They argue for more parental involvement and against the policy’s approach, indicating they want it rejected or substantially changed.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support this document and the guidance it contains" and praises the policies as creating "inclusive and equitable environments for transgender youth." They also urge additional implementation, including athletics participation aligned with gender and broader curriculum inclusion, which indicates support rather than opposition.


The commenter explicitly says, "I fully support the implementation of this guidance" and adds that it will be "extremely beneficial to our educators and our students." This is a clear endorsement of adopting the regulation.


The commenter explicitly states "Do not support," which clearly indicates opposition to adopting the regulation. No additional context suggests any nuance or conditional support.


The commenter explicitly states, "I do not support this policy," which directly indicates opposition to adoption. The title "DO NOT SUPPORT." reinforces the same position without offering any qualifying support or requested changes.


Are we adhering and teaching science or something else

The commenter explicitly says, "i am against this" and repeatedly states they would be "dead set against this." Their objections focus on parental notification, parental rights, and rejecting the policy as "not science" and "politics and emotion."


The commenter explicitly says, "I do not support this at all!" and "i do not agree with this at all!" They also call the proposal "shameful and a disgrace," indicating clear opposition to adoption of the regulation.


"transgender theories" ultimate child abuse by schools

The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, calling it "the ultimate child abuse" and accusing schools of "indoctrinating confusion" and "grooming" children. They also object to the policy on religious and parental-rights grounds, saying it would "take away God given parental custody."


Richmond, Born and Raised- And Also Transgender

The commenter explicitly urges adoption: "Pass the Model Policies for the Treatment of Transgender Students in Virginia’s Public Schools." They repeatedly argue the policy would improve safety, privacy, and mental health for transgender and nonbinary students and say it would have helped them personally.


The commenter explicitly says, "I am appalled at the Transgender Guidance Document" and frames it as harmful, stating it "will definitely create an unsafe school environment". They also criticize the policy as "ridiculous" and argue that school staff should not replace parents, indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly states "Opposed" and argues that "The State should not usurp the rights of parents," indicating rejection of the proposed policies. The comment does not suggest modifications or support for adoption.