The commenter argues against the policy by warning that it will let children “bounce from bathroom to bathroom and locker room to locker room,” exclude parents, and “disrupt[] an entire school for this small group of children.” These statements indicate they want the regulation weakened or rejected rather than adopted as written.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Support" and states that helping schools create "safe and inclusive educational experiences for all students, especially our LGBT youth" is important. This clearly endorses adopting the regulation.


The commenter repeatedly argues against the policy’s transgender accommodations, especially on bathrooms, changing rooms, and pronouns, saying students should have “different changing rooms, different restrooms” and that they must not be “coerce[d]” to use affirmed names/pronouns. Although they mention “compromises” and “compassion,” the overall thrust is to reject or substantially weaken the proposed guidance.


this places an undue burden on teachers and restricts parental rights. please do not pass this.

The commenter explicitly says, "please do not pass this," which clearly rejects the regulation. They also object that it "places an undue burden on teachers and restricts parental rights," indicating substantive opposition rather than a neutral observation.


The commenter explicitly asks to "please pass" the policy and states they want "safe schools for all students," which clearly supports adoption. The comment does not raise objections or request weakening changes.


The commenter explicitly says "Oppose" and argues that "Anyone with a penis should not be allowed to go into the girls bathroom and vice versa," which rejects the policy’s approach to transgender student facilities. The language indicates opposition to the regulation rather than support or a neutral question.


Do not deny our shared humanity by adopting this guidance

The commenter explicitly says, "Oppose this guidance," and repeatedly argues it is "misguided" and will "hurt so many." They object to its treatment of gender and specifically mention "demolishing safe spaces for girls’ athletic competition," indicating clear rejection of adoption.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Opposed" and argues the policy "will create more problems than it will solve." The only conditional allowance offered is if bathrooms are "a one person at a time type," which indicates opposition to the regulation as written.


The comment explicitly says "oppose" in both the title and body, indicating clear rejection of the proposed regulation. No supporting or qualifying language is provided.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose the transgender policy" and "I beg you not to pass this policy," which clearly indicates rejection of the regulation. They also argue it is a "slippery slope" leading to "biological males competing in athletics as girls," showing substantive opposition rather than a neutral concern.


The commenter explicitly says "strongly oppose!" and repeatedly argues the policy is "damaging" and asks officials to "get out of our children's lives & their schools." This is a clear rejection of the proposed regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I vehemently oppose this policy" and argues schools should not adopt it. They claim it would "violate the safety and security" of students and "confuse most young children," indicating rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose the Policies set forth in the document," which directly rejects adoption of the regulation. The additional statement that children should not be taught this "narrative" reinforces opposition to the transgender student policies.


The commenter says the policy "does nothing to protect non transgender students" and that it "infringes on religious rights," indicating clear opposition to adoption. They also argue it is "impossible to enforce equitably" and would create a "hostile environment," which further supports a rejection stance.


The commenter says, "Strongly opposed to this" and adds, "It should not be taught in the schools!!!" which clearly rejects the proposed policies. The title "Gender confusion" also signals disapproval of the regulation's subject matter.


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


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY OPPOSE" and calls the policy "unsupported by science" and "an affront to those with religious objections." The final sentence, "We need mental health services for Trans, not accommodations," rejects the regulation’s accommodation approach.


Trans students are entitled to equal protection under the law

The commenter explicitly argues that schools should not be given tools to "successfully discriminate against ANY child" and says trans students are entitled to "the same rights and protections." They frame the proposed policies as necessary to ensure a "safe, supportive learning environment" and oppose any exclusion or unequal treatment.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do NOT agree with this policy!" and repeatedly argues against it as "sick and corrupt" and "completely unnecessary." They also urge rejection of transgender accommodations, saying children should "use the bathroom that their parts match" and that the policy should not be implemented.


The commenter explicitly says, "Strongly oppose this guidance" and argues it "endangers the rights" of non-transgender individuals. They also reject the policy as "of ideological basis" and say the VDOE has "no place commenting or directing guidance on such matters," indicating clear opposition to adoption.


Strong opposition to transgender school policies

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose transgender public school policies," which directly rejects the regulation. The statement that students should "use the gender assigned to them by God at birth" indicates opposition to the policy's transgender accommodations.


The commenter explicitly says, "Please do not adopt this policy" and "I completely oppose this policy and do not want it forced on Virginia schools." They argue it is "mandatory promotion of politicized, sexualized ideology" and object to potential reporting of non-affirming parents as abuse concerns.


The commenter explicitly says the proposed policy "does not allow parents" to raise children in their faith-based view and accuses VDOE of trying to "usurp a parent's right." This is a clear rejection of the regulation as written.


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

The commenter explicitly says, "Please oppose this," which directly rejects the proposed regulation. The reference to a "parent's and child's right to oppose this" and not be "indoctrinated" indicates opposition to adoption of the policy.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose this," which directly states opposition to the proposed regulation. The reference to "II Chronicles 7:14" appears to be a religious appeal supporting that opposition.


You are born anatomically male or female

The commenter explicitly asks, "PLEASE DO NOT APPROVE A POLICY OF GENDER CONFUSION," which is a direct rejection of the proposed transgender student policies. The rest of the comment argues that gender issues should be handled by parents and that the policy would let government "overthrow the parents will," reinforcing opposition.


The commenter explicitly labels the proposal "Strongly Opposed" and says it is "heartbreaking" that the government would consider it. They also warn that it is "sickening" and imply school systems should not adopt it, which clearly indicates rejection of the regulation.


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


The commenter explicitly states "strongly oppose" and repeats it as the entire body, indicating clear rejection of the proposed regulation. There is no qualifying language suggesting support or neutrality.


I oppose transgender agenda & policies being forced on our children by the government

The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose transgender agenda & policies" and asks, "Please do not allow transgender agenda and policies to be forced upon our children at school." This is a clear rejection of the proposed transgender student policies.


I support efforts to help this vulnerable population

The commenter explicitly says, "I support efforts to provide resources, assistance and guidance to Virginia schools" regarding transgender students and asks that the guidance be considered. They also state, "This is about providing guidelines to ensure that children in our state can receive an education in a safe and welcoming environment," which clearly endorses adoption.


The commenter explicitly states, "Strongly oppose this policy," which directly indicates rejection of the proposed regulation. No supporting or neutral language is present.


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


The commenter explicitly says, "Generally, I am opposed to this policy as written" and ends with "Reword it PLEASE!" They argue the policy is "way beyond the need" and that it "takes away rights of everyone else," indicating opposition to the regulation in its current form.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy’s premise, asking rhetorically, "And I'm supposed to affirm it? No way." They describe transgender identity as harmful and say they do not support affirmation, indicating opposition to the regulation’s transgender-student protections.


oppose forcing students and people to embrace transgenderism

The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose forcing the overwhelming majority of people to embrace the ideology" and argues the policy would "contradict our God-given biological sex." They also claim it would "cause mass confusion," indicating rejection of the proposed transgender student policies.


Kids should not be allowed to make this decision prior to being an Adult

The commenter explicitly says the policy is "wrong" and argues schools should not "push[] our kids in this direction." They want children to remain "what God made you until you are a full adult," which clearly rejects the transgender student guidance.


Codifying protection for transgender and non-binary students in Virginia Public Schools

The commenter explicitly says, "I speak in support of strong policies to protect transgender and non-binary students" and references House Bill 145 and Senate Bill 161 favorably. They also argue these policies are needed to ensure students can access education without discrimination.


The commenter asks to "protect our biological girl's right to privacy, scholarships, and sports," which implies opposition to policies that would extend transgender student protections in these areas. The title "Biology not Identity" further signals rejection of the regulation's identity-based approach.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy with "NO" and says "This stuff should not be taught in school!" They further argue it should be handled "at HOME," indicating they want the regulation rejected rather than adopted.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose these transgender policies," which directly states opposition to adoption. They also argue the policies are "confusing" and would "set the state up for law suits," reinforcing a rejection of the regulation as written.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support the guidance," which directly endorses adoption of the regulation. They also praise protections against bullying and say all kids "deserve a safe space," reinforcing support for the policy's goals.


The commenter explicitly titles the submission "Oppose" and argues that the policy would mean "Ignoring rights of one group over another." The suggestion to "convert some of the male/female bathrooms to UniRooms" indicates a preference for a different approach rather than support for the proposed guidance as written.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose transgenderism!" which is a clear rejection of the policy’s subject matter. No supporting or neutral language is present.


The commenter explicitly says, "I am against the teaching and promoting of transgender program," which rejects the regulation’s purpose. They also argue it should be left to parents and that the government is "trying to destroy the home and take away parental authority," indicating opposition to school involvement.


OPPOSE TRANS Bathrooms - BIOLOGICAL GENDER

The commenter explicitly says "OPPOSE TRANS Bathrooms" and rejects "disregarding biological gender in public bathrooms & sports." The language condemns the policy as "evil and insane," indicating clear opposition to the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose!" and rejects government/school involvement in decisions for their child. The statement "This is completely ridiculous!" reinforces opposition to the proposed policies.


The commenter explicitly says, "Please support the legislation" and argues that schools should provide "a supportive environment" where "all students" can thrive. The comment criticizes opposition as "bigotry and fear-fueled mobs," indicating clear approval of the proposed policies.


I've been a teacher locally for over two decades and see the need for the proposed guidance, YES!

The commenter explicitly says they "support this guidance" and calls the proposed policies needed to "provide a safe and inclusive educational experience for all students." They also say "YES!" and describe the guidance as helping schools know "how to support them," indicating clear approval of adoption.


The commenter explicitly labels the proposal "STRONG SUPPORT" and says it is "so important" for "preserving the mental and physical health of trans and gender nonconforming children." They also praise the guidelines for creating a "more welcoming, supportive, and healthy environment," indicating clear approval of adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support this guidance" and explains that they want "all kids to be in a school environment that is safe and welcoming." The comment endorses the regulation as a way to better support trans students in schools.


The commenter says they are "categorically opposed" to the model policies and repeatedly argues against them, including objections to "remov[ing] parental rights," "forced speech," and allowing transgender students in sports. The final sentence states it is "immoral to encourage transgenderism in children," making clear they want the policy rejected.


The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose this policy" and repeatedly argues it is "dangerous, and harmful." They object to transgender identification, pronoun use, restroom access, and the lack of parental notification, concluding that "It is a family issue not the State."


The commenter explicitly labels the comment "Support" and says the guidelines "do just that" for transgender students. They also express approval by stating the policies show students they are "valued, supported, and loved."


The commenter explicitly says, "I do not approve of the VDOE purposed draft" and argues the policies should not be adopted because they are "contrary to parental rights" and "family values." They also claim the standards would create problems in bathrooms, locker rooms, and pronoun use, indicating opposition to the regulation as written.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do not approve of the VDOE purposed draft" and argues the policies should not be adopted because they are "contrary to parental rights" and create problems in bathrooms, locker rooms, and pronoun use. The overall thrust is rejection of the transgender policies as harmful and inappropriate for schools.


The commenter explicitly rejects the proposal, saying it will "further erode" parental rights and "essentially mandate promotion of gender confusion." They also warn it is a "hidden agenda" and say "Dont buy into this," which indicates clear opposition rather than a request for changes.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly support all of this" and endorses the policies as written. The rest of the comment reinforces approval of transgender inclusion, criticizing those who oppose it and saying to "accept it, move on."


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY SUPPORT!!!" and states they are "fully in support and very appreciative of this proposed policies document." They also endorse the goal that "LGBTQ students should feel safe and respected" in schools.


Support for inclusive school environments for trans and non-binary students

The commenter explicitly says, "I am fully in support of the VDOE’s guidance" and asks to "do all you can" to ensure the policies are adopted. They also frame the guidance as necessary for a "safe and welcoming environment" for trans and non-binary students.


The commenter rejects the premise of the proposed transgender student policies by asserting that "Gender is based on biology" and that sex is fixed by chromosomes. Although they do not explicitly say "reject this regulation," the comment clearly argues against the policy's underlying recognition of transgender identities and accommodations.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support guidance" and argues that "Trans youth need our support and the support of their schools." They also endorse the policy’s goals of safety and dignity for all students, indicating clear approval of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY SUPPORT" and describes the policy as "a simple matter of fairness and recognition of individual differences," which clearly endorses adoption. There is no indication of opposition or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose" and urges adults not to "encourag[e] this stuff," calling it "madness." The language clearly rejects the proposed transgender student policies rather than supporting them with changes.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support the guidance" and asks, "Please give the kids what they need," which clearly endorses adoption of the policy. The comment frames the guidance as helping create a "safe and supportive" approach for all students.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do not agree with the 'model policies'" and repeatedly argues to stop or limit them, including "If you are so concerned... then give them their own locker room and bathroom" and "Stop making 75% of your students uncomfortable." The comment clearly rejects the proposed transgender student policies and calls them harmful and unnecessary.


Transgender policy changes to K 12 teaching

The commenter says they are "totally and vehemently Opposed" to the proposed changes and explicitly says they "need to be scrapped." They also argue the policy threatens "the safety of our female students" and overrides "Parental authority and input," indicating rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support this guidance" and explains that it would help "my non-binary and trans friends to feel comfortable and safe in their school environment." The comment clearly endorses adoption of the policy to improve student safety and comfort.


The commenter says, "Strongly Disagree this needs to be taught in a school setting to our kids," which clearly rejects the policy. The statement that it is "difficult for grown adults to understand much less a child" reinforces opposition to introducing these transgender-related policies in schools.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly AGAINST" and calls the proposal "absolutely disgusting," indicating clear opposition to adoption. The statement that it is "creating a completely hostile environment for children" further shows rejection of the regulation.


K through 12 transgender policy proposals -vehemently oppose!

The commenter explicitly says they "vehemently oppose" the proposal and states it "needs to be totally scrapped." They object to perceived loss of "parental authority" and to "girls restrooms being permitted to be entered by males," indicating rejection of the regulation as proposed.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support VDOE's Model Policies for the Treatment of Transgender Students in Virginia Public Schools." They also praise the policies as providing "expertise and guidance" and say they "enhance" opportunities for students, indicating clear approval of adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "This Legislation Should not be Appoved" and repeatedly argues the policies are "harmful" and an "absolutely unacceptable" violation of rights. They call for rejecting the proposal, citing concerns about bathrooms, locker rooms, parental consent, and alleged safety risks.


The commenters say they "adamantly oppose these proposals" and explicitly state they "should NOT be implemented across the Commonwealth of Virginia." They also argue the policies "undermine parental authority and threaten the wellbeing of children," which clearly indicates rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I STRONGLY SUPPORT the VDOE's guidance." They further affirm that "Trans, non-binary, and all LGBTQ+ students have the right to protections," indicating clear approval of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support protections for LGBTQ+ students in our schools," which clearly endorses the regulation. They also state the goal is to let students "present their authentic selves without fear of discrimination or harassment," aligning with the policy's protections.


The commenter rejects the policy’s approach, arguing that children should not be used "for the sake of activists" and that males and females should not be required to share "locker rooms, bathrooms or athletics." This indicates opposition to the proposed transgender student policies as written.


The Collective Responsibility of Liberty

The commenter explicitly argues that the policy should be removed from the conversation, saying it would "put[] our children and youth at risk" and "add[] to the confusion". They also criticize the regulation as "laws that have no merit" and ask whether pursuing it is "the right and wise thing to do," which indicates opposition to adoption.


The commenter argues against the policy as written, saying "Let's not be so extreme" and warning that "these rules will be taken advantage of." They also object to "more confusing things onto our children," indicating opposition to adoption in its current form.


The commenter explicitly says "strongly support" and argues that the policy is respectful and beneficial. They endorse specific provisions like using pronouns, protecting privacy, and having a non-sexist dress code, while stating it "creates a more inclusive learning environment."


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, saying it "should never become allowed in our Schools" and calling the effort "terribly foolish." The language indicates opposition to transgender inclusion in schools and to the proposed guidance generally.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support the model guidelines" and describes them as "fair and reasonable." They also endorse the underlying approach of "respectfully accepting our differences" and relate it positively to their own experience.


Proposed policy goes way beyond prevention

The commenter explicitly says, "I’m writing today to OPPOSE" the proposed policies and repeatedly argues they "should not be adopted." The body lists multiple objections about pronouns, parental notification, bathrooms, dress codes, and alleged promotion of ideology, all indicating rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support this policy for the respectful treatment of transgender students." They also endorse specific provisions such as "using proper pronouns," "prohibiting bullying and harassment," and "respecting student privacy and confidentiality," indicating approval of the regulation as proposed.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose this indoctrination" and ends with "Please say NO to this dangerous policy." They argue against transgender students using opposite-sex bathrooms and criticize the policy as harmful and inappropriate for schools.


The commenter says, "I STRONGLY disagree with this proposal" and explicitly asks, "Please STOP this nonsense!" They object to transgender students using girls' locker rooms and participating in female sports, indicating opposition to the regulation as written.


if you allow your child to be taught these things there blood will be on your hands REPENT!!!!!

The commenter explicitly warns against allowing children to be taught "these things" and condemns the policy as part of a "godless and corrupt" government. The repeated calls to "REPENT!!!!!" and references to Satan indicate strong rejection of the transgender student policies.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support this guidance" and titles the comment "Strongly Support." They also explain that they want "all kids in Virginia to be in a school environment that is safe and welcoming," which aligns with adopting the policy.


The commenter explicitly says they are "strictly OPPOSED" and repeats "NO!" in response to the policy. They argue the government should not "force feed" students these "actions" and object to the policy as "absurd" and "insane."


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Support" and thanks the agency for "leading the way to a healthier environment for all students." They also state the policies are "justified by research" and beneficial for transgender and gender non-conforming students, indicating clear approval of adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "Please adopt this policy" and frames it as "needed and necessary progress" to respect transgender youth. The body repeatedly endorses the regulation’s goals, emphasizing support for "the rights of all children" and affirming the policy's protections.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do not believe this proposition positions our children for what is in their best interest," and repeatedly argues against the policy's premise. The comment frames the guidance as harmful and rejects the idea that children should be able to "associate as a different gender" or "CHANGE genders."


Strongly support as a conservative position!

The commenter explicitly says "Strongly support" and argues that "support for diversity, equity, and the rights of all individuals" is the correct position. They also urge, "Let's leave our kids alone to become who they are," and say the document "gives them the right to leave biases behind," which clearly endorses adoption of the guidance.


The commenter explicitly titles the post "Oppose!" and says "the rest of this is nonsense," indicating rejection of the proposed policies. They object to pronoun expectations, discussion of gender identity in school, and bathroom access for transgender students, while only conceding that "No child should be bullied."


The commenter explicitly labels the submission "Strongly Oppose" and argues against the policy by asserting that sex is a fixed binary and saying, "Stop imposing morals that contradict the Word of God." This indicates they want the regulation rejected rather than adopted.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose" and calls the policy "unacceptable." They argue it is "not safe for our CHILDREN" and object to allowing students to use opposite-sex restrooms, indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly endorses the proposal, calling it "a great step forward" and saying it "will save lives." They argue the policy helps schools create "a safe and welcoming environment" and asks students and staff to treat trans and non-binary students with respect.


The commenter explicitly states "Strongly Oppose/Disagree," which clearly indicates rejection of the proposed policies. No supporting reasons are provided, but the position itself is unambiguous.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Oppose/Disagree" and argues the policy would "subject them to such sin" and is "absolutely disgusting," indicating clear rejection of the regulation. The comment frames the proposal as morally harmful and says it leads children "down an eternal path that leads straight to hell."


The commenter explicitly says "Support trans kids!!" and argues that trans youths need "proper support and care" and should be treated as the gender they identify with. The final line, "And it starts with kids," clearly endorses the proposed policies' supportive approach.


The commenter explicitly begins with "Oppose" and questions the need for the proposal, saying existing "anti bullying policies currently in place covers all." This indicates they do not want the regulation adopted as proposed.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, saying "This is inappropriate on so many levels" and "This cannot happen." They object to "transgender/gender confusion nonsense influencing my children," indicating they do not want the regulation adopted.


The commenter explicitly says, "Do not pass any legislation such as this," and argues against allowing transgender students in school facilities. They frame the policy as taking away parental rights and causing "MORE distress and confusion," which indicates clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly asks to "Please reconsider" and says "do not allow this to happen," indicating opposition to the proposed policies. They object to "biological males into female locker rooms" and frame the change as "a drastic step," even while expressing concern for trans kids' safety.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly disagree with this proposal" and argues it would "force my children to adhere to ridiculous policies." They also reject the need for the regulation by saying existing anti-bullying programs are already in place and that the policy would let kids "identify as whatever they want," indicating opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says they are "Opposed to Draft for Transgender Policies" and argues the proposed policies "might be better handled at the local level" rather than as sweeping state guidance. They acknowledge the issue needs to be addressed, but repeatedly reject the proposed approach as too broad and likely to "open[] the door to many more problems."


The commenter explicitly says "Absolutely Opposed" and "I strongly oppose these policies by all means." They argue the policies let schools make decisions "against parents" and object to restroom/changing room access based on gender identity, indicating rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY OPPOSE" and repeatedly rejects the policy, calling it "forcing involuntary acceptance" and pleading, "Don't force this on the parents and families of Virginia." They argue the policy would make girls unsafe in bathrooms/changing areas and should not be adopted.


This Policy is divorced from the Ultimate Truth revealed to us by the Creator

The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, saying it "totally rejects" God's truth and that "The fundamental principles behind the words of this document are WRONG." They also urge, "Start over," indicating they do not want the regulation adopted in its current form.


The commenter explicitly says, "I fully support making our public schools inclusive for all of our students" and argues that schools should provide "a supportive and safe environment." They also reject objections to the policy, stating that "the arguments against this bill... are not fully informed."


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Oppose" and urges, "Do not sacrifice the many for the few," indicating rejection of the proposed transgender student policies. They argue against allowing transgender students to be treated according to gender identity, stating that "Biological boys... should not be mixed in with biological girls and vice versa."


Let Children be children and ask Adults to act like Adults

The commenter explicitly states, "I oppose this policy" and repeatedly argues schools should not "cater" to transgender students or "encourage them to make decisions they are not fit to make." They also call it "anti-parent, anti-family" and say it is "a model of how not to respect and care about children," indicating clear rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose policy" and repeats "strongly oppose" at the end. They object to "having both sexes in the same locker room" and say they are "not just going to accept this," indicating clear rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose this proposed model," which directly states opposition to adoption. They also argue it "jeopardizes parent rights" and calls the mandates "terrifying," reinforcing a clear rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly states "Opposed to transgender" and the title says "Opposed to transgendered policy," indicating rejection of the proposed transgender student policies. No supporting or qualifying language is provided.


The commenter explicitly says, "I whole heartedly support!" which directly endorses the proposed policies. The remainder of the comment offers encouragement to trans individuals, reinforcing approval rather than criticism or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support this" and argues there is "no reason not to support this." They further endorse the policy because "Transgender students need our support" and emphasize the importance of pronouns and affirmation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I fully support the Virginia Department of Education's model policies." They also endorse the policy goals by stating that children "deserve equitable representation and recognition" and describing positive effects of recognition on children.


The comment explicitly says "Opposed to transgender," which clearly indicates rejection of the proposed transgender student policy. No supporting or neutral language is present.


The commenter explicitly says, "Strongly oppose!" and adds, "I oppose all mandatory teaching/ policies in our public schools!" This clearly rejects the proposed transgender student policies and, more broadly, mandatory school policies.


Oppose Transgender Policy Not Anyone Who Is Transgender

The commenter explicitly asks to "re-think this" and says the policy "becomes a problem" when it affects their child’s education. They object to parental non-notification, transgender participation in sports, and school discussions they feel conflict with their beliefs, indicating opposition to adoption of the policy as written.


The commenter explicitly titles the submission "Strongly Oppose" and supports that position with a religious objection: "God made male and female only." This indicates they do not want the transgender student policies adopted.


The commenter explicitly says, "This is not appropriate in the public school system" and rejects the policy’s premise by asserting "there are only two genders." The language condemns the Board and government for adopting it, indicating clear opposition to the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose" and states the policy "goes against everything a family stands for." They also reject transgender bathroom access, saying "definitely not to use a transgender bathroom" and "leave our children alone," indicating clear opposition to the regulation.


The commenter explicitly labels the policy "STRONGLY OPPOSE" and repeatedly asks officials to reject it, calling it "a terrifying policy" and urging them to "consider the safety of our vulnerable children." The objections focus on bathroom and locker room access, privacy, and safety concerns for girls.


I Oppose transgender education or any other kind of sex education to children in public schools.

The commenter explicitly says, "I Oppose transgender education or any other kind of sex education to children in public schools" and repeats that "Sex education and transgender education does NOT belong in a school system." They also call for schools to "Stop indoctrinating the children," indicating rejection of the proposed policies.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose this" and states that it has "no business being part of public school education." They also object on parental-rights grounds, saying "parents should have the right to know what is happening with their children."


The commenter explicitly says, "I support Model Policies for the Treatment of Transgender Students in Virginia’s Public Schools" and describes the policies as "thoughtful and reasonable." They also argue the policies will improve privacy, equal treatment, and training, and conclude with "Thank you for the opportunity to comment."


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy as "terrifying and sickening" and says it is "fundamentally destroying everything good within America." They urge officials to "take a stand" against it and say they will keep their daughter "far away" from public school because of this consideration.


The commenter explicitly states, "I support the policy," and the title also says "Support this policy." There is no qualifying language or criticism suggesting opposition or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly says, "I STRONGLY DISAGREE ON THIS TRANSGENDER POLICY" and argues against allowing students to choose bathrooms or locker rooms. They propose separate facilities for transgender or questioning students, indicating opposition to the policy as written.


The commenter explicitly says, "Strongly opposed!!!" and asks to "Keep this horribly policy out of our public schools," which clearly rejects adoption. They also argue it "contradicts freedom of religion and speech" and that it is "not the schools place," indicating opposition to the regulation's substance.


The commenter explicitly says "Opposed to transgender policy" and states it "should not be allowed in our school system." The rest of the comment reinforces rejection of the policy with hostile language about restroom and locker room access.


The commenter explicitly states, "I do not approve of VDOE transgender policy guidelines," which directly rejects the proposed regulation. The title, "Opposed to transgender policy," reinforces that they want it rejected.


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


Irreparable harm to innocence - irreparable harm to natural identity forming process

The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, stating "No to trangender Policies of any sort in Virginia Schools" and urging that it not be implemented. The rest of the comment argues the policies would cause "irreparable harm" and "threaten[] the very fabric of society," reinforcing opposition.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly support safe spaces for all children" and urges to "enact policies to protect transgender children." They also state that "Passing a bill such as this would help" and frame the regulation as a way to support transgender youth.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, stating "No to trangender Policies of any sort in Virginia Schools" and arguing it would cause "irreparable harm" and "confusion among our children." The comment also calls for the policies' proponents to be replaced, indicating strong opposition rather than a request for modification.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly urge you not to pass this" and concludes, "This is not a good idea." The body argues the policy will create false accusations and manipulation, indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter clearly rejects the regulation, saying "This is so wrong on so many levels" and "This not safe at all." These phrases indicate opposition to adopting the transgender student policies, framed as a safety concern.


I support these model policies - these students are our CHILDREN first and foremost

The commenter explicitly says, "I support the adoption of these policies into the public school system" and urges, "Please don't deny any of our kids their right to an education." They also praise the policies as ones that "deter bullying, treat each child with respect, and honor their privacy."


The commenter explicitly says "Vehemently Oppose" and states "My children will never see the inside of a public school with these policies in place," which clearly rejects the regulation. They also argue it is "fundamentally wrong" and claim it will be "abused by predators," indicating strong opposition rather than a request for modification.


The commenter explicitly says they "strongly supports this guidance document" and calls the guidance "tremendously helpful." They also state that it is "essential" for trans and non-binary students to have a safe and inclusive educational environment, indicating clear approval of adoption.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY OPPOSE!!" and repeatedly rejects the policy, asking why schools should implement it and calling it "INSANE!!!" and "EVIL!". They object to "boys in girls restrooms and locker rooms" and to the policy's treatment of parents, indicating clear opposition to adoption.


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


The commenter rejects outside involvement in transgender student policy, saying it is "between the child and the parents / guardians" and that "Bureaucrats and professionals... have no right" to intervene. The language about "social engineering experiments" and "lab rats" indicates opposition to the regulation and the guidance it represents.


Gender Dysphoria & Public School Policy ~ VA Department of Education

The commenter explicitly says, "I DO NOT SUPPORT the proposed policy involving students with gender dysphoria," which directly rejects the regulation. The additional remark about being thankful their child no longer attends Virginia public schools reinforces opposition rather than support or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do not support" these policies and concludes that they "have absolutely no place in the Virginia school system." They repeatedly argue the regulations are "destructive and harmful" and say they should not be incorporated.


The commenter explicitly labels the submission "Strongly Oppose" and argues the policies create harmful consequences, asking "Imagine the ramifications of these policies" and saying these situations "need to be dealt with in therapy offices" rather than schools. The comment objects to staff involvement and parental consent concerns, indicating rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly states "STRONGLY OPPOSED!!" which clearly indicates rejection of the proposed regulation. No supporting reasons or qualifications are provided.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly opposed" and rejects the policy framework. The statement "Only parents can make these kinds of decisions" indicates opposition to the regulation’s approach to transgender student treatment in schools.


STRONGLY OPPOSED- what about girls/women's rights?

The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY OPPOSED" and states they "draw the line with this policy" because it takes away "my daughter's rights/women's rights." They also call the policy "ludicrous" and say the state will "forever destroy Virginia and America," indicating clear rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I REJECT THIS IDEA" and repeatedly argues against the policy, threatening to "pull my child from school and homeschool instead." They object to transgender inclusion, saying it would "confuse" children and is "not safe" and would cause "psychological problems."


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, calling it a "Disagreement with This Concept" and arguing it "puts students at risk," "compromises the role of family," and creates "chaotic" and "physically dangerous" conditions. The closing language about the department "ideologically betraying" the state and mocking the policy as "logical bankruptcy" further shows clear opposition.


The commenter explicitly says, "Is there a term stronger than strongly oppose?" and criticizes the VDOE for "even considering such action," indicating clear rejection of the proposed policies. The language also urges the department to abandon the action entirely, not merely modify it.


The commenter explicitly titles the submission "Strongly Oppose" and calls the policies "beyond ridiculous." They also argue the policies "impose burdens on others," which indicates rejection of the regulation rather than support or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly states, "I strongly oppose," and the title says "Strongly oppose this transgender policy." This is a clear rejection of the proposed regulation.


Totally illegal/unconstitutional- open2 lawsuits- school choice/charter schools are more rational so

The commenter explicitly rejects the policy as "Totally illegal/unconstitutional" and says it is being "force[d]... down the throats" of others. They argue for alternatives like "school choice/charter schools" instead of the proposed guidance, indicating opposition to adoption in its current form.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose" and threatens to withdraw children and quit working at the school if "this bill passes," indicating clear rejection of the regulation. The phrase "This is pure insanity!" reinforces opposition.


Support for Model Policies for the Treatment of Transgender Students

The commenter explicitly says they "voice my support for the Model Policies" and argues that "all students enjoy an education free from harrassment and discrimination." The comment endorses the regulation as a way to ensure students are treated "with dignity."


Totally naive and unsafe for all children.

The commenter clearly rejects the policy, calling it "Totally naive and unsafe for all children" and criticizing those behind it as "Very impulsive and naive." The questions about protecting "biological females" and concerns about "false rape accusations" indicate opposition to the transgender student policies on safety grounds.


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy: "Absolutely no to your policy!" and says they "will not allow" their child to be exposed to it. They argue transgender-related instruction should be the parent's responsibility and object to restroom access and perceived safety risks.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly opposed," which directly states opposition to the regulation. The body reinforces this by claiming it "jeopardizes the privacy and safety of our children and families."


The commenter explicitly says, "Strongly oppose this!!!" twice in the title and body, which clearly indicates rejection of the proposed regulation. No supporting or neutral language is present.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose," which directly states opposition to the regulation. The body reinforces this by claiming it is "inappropriate" and does not support "family cohesiveness" or "the safety of all children."


School choice/charter school for those open to this idea would be more feasible and rational

The commenter rejects the policy approach, asking why the state would not instead offer a "safe charter school" as a "test run" and stating, "This is very poorly planned." This indicates opposition to adopting the regulation as written and a preference for an alternative, narrower approach.


Absolutely not ok! Not safe and not according to our Christian faith! No more public schools!

The commenter explicitly rejects the policy with phrases like "Absolutely not ok!" and "This is so wrong!" They argue it is "not safe" and conflict with "our Christian faith," and ask to "stop pushing adult issues and agendas on them," indicating opposition to adoption of the regulation.


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


Please Do this and Protect Trans students (Who are children as well)

The commenter explicitly asks, "Please Do this and Protect Trans students" and urges the policy to be adopted to support trans/GNC youth. They argue that school should be a safe environment and that using a student's chosen name helps prevent pain and supports learning.


The commenter says the policy is "unnecessary" and argues that existing laws already cover the issue, implying the regulation should not be adopted. The phrase "all you'd have remaining is a permission slip" is dismissive and frames the policy as enabling behavior they oppose.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Oppose" and argues that "Schools should not be permitted to make any decisions regarding a student gender" and that schools "should not have any say so at all." This is a clear rejection of the proposed transgender student policies.


Gender Education Protect the rights of parents and children. I oppose this bill

The commenter explicitly says, "I STRONGLY OPPOSE THIZ BILL" and repeats that it is "THE PARENT'S JOB NOT SCHOOLS!" This clearly rejects the proposed transgender student policies rather than supporting them with changes.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose the policies being put forth by the D.O.E." They also argue the policies weaken "parental rights," create "confusing situations," and make children feel "unsafe," all of which indicate rejection of the regulation.


Treatment of Transgender Students in Virginia Schools

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose them," referring to the proposed policy changes. The rest of the comment questions the evidence and argues the policy harms "the vast majority of our students," reinforcing opposition.


The commenter explicitly states "STRONGLY OPPOSE!!!," which is a direct rejection of the proposed regulation. No supporting reasons or qualifications are provided, but the stance is unambiguous.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY SUPPORT" and repeats "I support!" They also argue the policy would "benefit trans youth" and provide "systematic support against bullying and harassment," indicating clear approval of the regulation.


Oppose the idea of girls and boys using the same bathrooms and locker rooms

The commenter explicitly says, "I absolutely oppose" the policy and rejects children sharing bathrooms or locker rooms with transgender students. They also oppose school instruction on transgender topics, stating there should be "no education" about "Transexual or heterosexual behavior."


The commenter explicitly labels the submission "Oppose" and says "This is not a good plan at all." They argue the policy is unsafe and object to allowing "a male identifying as a female" in girls' locker rooms and restrooms, indicating rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I am strongly opposed to this legislation" and asks not to pass it: "Instead of passing this horrible legislation." They also object to privacy provisions and facility access, saying teachers should not keep information from parents and children should not share facilities with the opposite sex.


The commenter explicitly says, "Strongly oppose this bill" and repeats that they "strongly oppose" the law. They argue it would "brainwash" children, create "confusion," and inflict "emotional and psychological abuse," all of which indicate rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose" the policy and objects to "sharing of bathrooms/locker rooms between members of the opposite sex." This is a clear rejection of the regulation’s transgender student accommodations, especially facility access provisions.


The commenter explicitly titles the comment "STRONGLY SUPPORT" and says the policy "serves in the best interest of the most people." They also argue it "facilitates" transgender people living their "genuine lives," which clearly endorses adoption of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do not support this bill" and repeatedly argues against the policy, calling to "Stop this transgender teaching." They also object to pronoun use and to "biological males in the locker room and bathroom with biological females," indicating opposition to the regulation's transgender accommodations.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Support" and argues that "Trans kids should be able to live their lives free of this discrimination," which clearly endorses the regulation’s protections for transgender students. The rest of the comment condemns opposing views as "transphobia and bigotry," reinforcing support rather than opposition.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY OPPOSE" and repeatedly argues against the policy, calling it a "ridiculous law" and saying schools should "Stop trying to shove these liberal ideas down everyone's throat." They also reject transgender-inclusive restroom access and urge the state to fund a separate "3rd option" instead.


The commenter explicitly says they "strongly oppose this passing in our public schools" and repeatedly argues against allowing transgender students access to shared facilities. They also threaten to withdraw their children if it passes, indicating clear opposition to the regulation.


The commenter describes the policy as "extreme" and objects that it creates "the threat of taking children away from their parents," which indicates opposition to adoption. They also say it "puts educators in a tough situation" and question consequences for noncompliance, further signaling disapproval of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose this legislation," and argues against the policy's approach to transgender students' restroom use and privacy. They also object to "Secrecy or separation from a minor child's parents," indicating rejection of the regulation as written.


The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose the proposed VDOE Model Guidelines," which is a direct rejection of the regulation. Although they mention it should be "revised," the stated reason is that the current proposal is unsafe and would "open the public schools to litigation," indicating opposition to adoption as written.


Strongly Opposed. Creates more problems than it solves.

The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Opposed" and argues the policy "creates more problems than it solves." They object to bathroom, locker room, and sports participation provisions, saying it would make non-transgender students uncomfortable and increase tension.


The commenter explicitly says "strongly oppose" and argues the policy would "putting thousands of kids at risk" and make a teenage girl feel unsafe. They object specifically to transgender students using "gender specific restrooms and locker rooms in school," indicating rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do NOT support this" and asks, "Please do not pass this." They argue the policy is "dangerous" and claim it will "encourage gender confusion," indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly opposed" and states they "can only see really negative things coming from enacting this." They argue the policy would cause "trauma and abuse," undermine parent/child trust, conflict with "Christianity," and suggest an alternative: "Why not just make some individual bathrooms?"


The commenter explicitly rejects the policy, asking "Where's the science behind this?" and calling it "nonsense" and "make believe tales." They also say schools are "public indoctrination camps," indicating they do not want the regulation adopted.


The commenter explicitly opens with "Strongly Agree" and repeatedly endorses the policy, saying public schools should accept students "regardless of... gender identity" and that public institutions should "treat everyone the same." They also reject objections to transgender restroom access and argue there is "no evidence" supporting claims against transgender students, indicating clear support for the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose" and objects to "gender promotion in tax payer funded schools," indicating they do not want the regulation adopted. The phrase "for the protection" suggests a concern-based objection rather than support for the policy.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support the guidance" and endorses "any policies that make our schools a safer place for transgender and non-binary students." They also reference personal experience with bullying and harassment as the reason for support.


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

The commenter explicitly says, "Strongly oppose this mode of thinking," which directly rejects the proposed policies. They also argue it will bring "a Pandora's Box of woes" and lead children into "confusion and misery," indicating clear opposition to adoption.


Strongly oppose. Creates a punitive environment.

The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose" and describes the policy as creating a "punitive environment," which clearly indicates rejection of the regulation. The reference to constitutional violation and disappointment reinforces opposition rather than support or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly says, "I am opposed" and argues that promoting gender change "should be kept out of our schools," which clearly rejects the proposed policies. The religious framing (“God created man in His image”) reinforces opposition to the regulation’s treatment of transgender students.


The commenter says, "I am strongly opposed to any policy" and urges Virginia to "stop this nonsense and stay as far away from the transgender ideology as possible," which clearly rejects the regulation. The comment argues against recognizing transgender students' identities and instead insists on biological sex only.


The commenter explicitly says "strongly oppose" and "being opposed to this," indicating clear rejection of the proposed policies. They argue the regulation will "open the doors for so much hurt and discrimination," cause "confusion of our young children," and lead to a "loss of parental guidance," all of which show opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "i most definitely do not want this allowed anywhere!" and repeatedly argues against allowing transgender students to use bathrooms aligned with their gender identity. They urge, "Don’t allow them to be able to go into the opposite bathroom!!!!" which clearly opposes the regulation.


The commenter says, "I do not even see how this should be voted on" and calls it "overreach," which clearly rejects the regulation. There is no language suggesting support or a neutral question; the comment expresses opposition to the policy itself.


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


The commenter explicitly labels the submission "oppose" and argues that the model policy "does none of that" and is "simply harming all students." They object to allowing students to define their own gender identity, calling it "sexual confusion" and a "false reality," which indicates rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "Please say no!" and "Say NO!" to the proposed policy. They argue it is "asking for trouble" and that transgender students should use the bathroom of the gender they were born with, indicating rejection of the regulation as written.


The comment explicitly says "Oppose," which directly states the commenter’s position on the regulation. No additional reasoning or qualifications are provided.


The comment explicitly says "oppose!" and the title reads "Oppose Va policy for transgender students," leaving no ambiguity about the writer's position. It is a direct rejection of the proposed regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I am writing in support of the Model Policies on the Treatment of Transgender Students" and repeatedly argues that "all students should have equal access to education" and "Every child deserves equal love, support, and education." The comment urges adoption by asking, "why wouldn’t we consider the change," and frames the policies as a step toward tolerance and equality.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Support" and argues for "Inclusivity" and "equal rights," which clearly endorses the regulation’s protections for transgender students. The phrase "Enough of the religious indignation" indicates opposition to objections against the policy rather than opposition to the policy itself.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Support these measures" and thanks the agency for considering them. They frame the policies as promoting "the safety and well being of all students," indicating clear approval of adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I am opposed to any special treatment or provisions for transgender people," and frames the policy as harmful and deceptive. They instead advocate counseling to prevent people from "falling prey to such a destructive way of life," which indicates rejection of the regulation's purpose.


Very strongly oppose VDOE Transgender policies

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose the VDOE policies" and argues that adopting them would harm girls' sports and student safety. The statement frames the proposal as dangerous, indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter says they are "totally opposed to the new proposed transgender policies" and explicitly asks the DOE to "reconsider this dangerous and ill-advised policy change." They object to bathroom/changing-room access, parental exclusion, and pronoun requirements, all indicating rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "Very strongly oppose VDOE Transgender policies," which directly states opposition to adoption. The follow-up sentence argues the policies would create "more confusion" rather than clarity, reinforcing that they want the regulation rejected.


Oppose  Dept. of Education Proposed Transgender Policy

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose" the proposed transgender policy and describes it as "seeking to impose" it on schools. They also object to specific provisions like bathroom access and pronoun use, indicating rejection of the regulation rather than support or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly titles the submission "Strongly Support" and says "These recommended policies will ensure our children have the space and acceptance to be who they are." The comment clearly endorses adopting the policies to support students' needs and safety.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly support" and states that "These recommended policies will ensure our children have the space and acceptance to be who they are." This clearly endorses adoption of the regulation as written.


The commenter says the policy has "some glaring issues," calls parts of it "not your lane VDOE," and repeatedly criticizes specific provisions on parental notification, gender identity assertions, and restroom access. Although they agree with the privacy/safety language on page 16, the overall thrust is that the plan "needs a lot of revision" and is currently unacceptable.


Transgender Students in Virginia's Public Schools

The commenter explicitly says, "Please reject the Model Policies," which is a direct call against adoption. They also state the policies are "harmful to children" and "undermine the rights of parents and families," reinforcing opposition.


The commenter says, "Iam strongly opposed support of transgender ed and acceptance," which clearly rejects the proposed transgender student policies. The wording indicates opposition to the regulation’s purpose rather than a request for changes.


The comment explicitly says "Strongly support," which directly indicates approval of the proposed regulation. No contrary language or qualifications are provided.


The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose these new policies." They also argue that introducing this topic into schools "makes no sense" and that the government is getting "way to involved in the nitty gritty," indicating rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly titles the submission "Very Strongly Oppose VDOE Transgender Policies" and repeatedly rejects the policy content, objecting to "biological male using same facility as daughter" and "all students use any bathroom they choose." The comment frames the regulation as harmful to children and asks, "How can you put children through such a thing?"


The commenter explicitly says, "Oppose this policy" and states that adopting it "would eventually mean the end of girls' high school sports." This is a clear rejection of the proposed regulation based on concerns about student well-being and athletics.


The commenter explicitly says "Oppose this destruction of the family," which directly rejects the proposed policy. The statement that "Parents should train the child and school support the parent not the other way around" indicates opposition to the regulation's approach to transgender students in schools.


The commenter explicitly states, "I oppose trangender policy in schools," which clearly rejects the proposed transgender student policy. No mitigating language or support for any part of the regulation is provided.


The commenter explicitly says, "I am against this policy" and argues it will be "detrimental" and cause a "breakdown of the family unit." The criticism that it involves "hiding information from parents" shows opposition to the regulation as written.


Oppose the policy -- teachers do not know my child

The commenter explicitly says "Oppose the policy" and argues that parents, not schools, should know what is best for the child. The statement that "teachers do not know my child" and concern that a child would "hide truth from parents" indicates rejection of the transgender student policy framework.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do not approve of the guidelines proposed," which directly rejects the regulation. They also argue it would deny parents' rights and create "confusion, fear and anxiety" and harm teachers, indicating opposition to adoption.


boys joining girls' teams will wreck the programs

The commenter argues that allowing boys to join girls' teams will "seriously damage" their child's competition and school spirit, which clearly rejects the policy's approach to transgender student participation in sex-specific sports. The phrase "will wreck the programs" signals opposition to adoption as written.


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

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support the model policies for transgender youth," which directly endorses adoption of the regulation. The statement "Transgender rights are human rights" reinforces a favorable position toward the policy's goals.


SUPPORT VDOE Model transgender student policy

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support the Virginia Department of Education's model policy" and endorses its purpose of protecting transgender and non-binary students. They also affirm the policy's goals of ensuring education "free of harassment and discrimination."


The commenter explicitly says, "I encourage the adoption of these common sense guidance," which directly supports the regulation. They also frame it as helping children be "kept safe, treated with respect and support" and wanting "EVERY child to thrive," reinforcing approval.


The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose this policy" and repeats "I OPPOSE!" indicating clear rejection of the regulation. The statement that it is "NOT the schools system duty" and "wrong on many levels" reinforces opposition rather than a request for modification.


The commenter explicitly says they "emphatically supports" the policy and states there is a "strong need for a policy such as this." They argue it helps provide "a safe space" and support for transgender/LGBTQ+ students, indicating clear approval of adoption.


The commenter explicitly says "STONGLY OPPOSE" and argues against the policy on the grounds that "the safety of our girls is being compromised" and that fair competition in sports is being taken away. This is a clear rejection of the regulation as written.


Absolutely disgusting.  God gave us genders. Strongly disagree

The commenter explicitly says "Strongly disagree" and calls the policy "Absolutely disgusting," indicating clear rejection of the regulation. The reference to "God gave us genders" and urging people to "read your Bible" shows opposition grounded in religious beliefs.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly OPPOSE Transgender Policy" and ends with "Reform these policies, or scrap them." They object to bathroom/locker room access, sports participation, and parental notification provisions, indicating they want the policy rejected or substantially weakened.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support the draft model guidance" and adds that the policies "afford[] basic civil rights to transgender/nonbinary/gender fluid/diverse students." They also state, "We must support all students," indicating approval of adoption as drafted.


Strongly oppose VDOE draft policy for the treatment of transgender students

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose the VDOE draft policy" and repeatedly argues against adoption of the policy. They object to privacy, parental rights, and religious freedom implications, and conclude that the policies provide "absolutely no exceptions or accommodations" for dissenting beliefs.


oppose this policy of undermining the family

The commenter explicitly says "Oppose this policy" and repeats "Oppose school intrusion into the family," which clearly rejects the proposed regulation. The phrase "undermining the family" indicates opposition based on parental/family rights concerns.


The commenter explicitly states "STRONGLY AGAINST," which clearly indicates opposition to adopting the proposed transgender student policies. No supporting reasons or qualifications are provided.


The commenter explicitly says "I strongly disagree" in response to the proposed transgender student policies, indicating clear opposition to adoption. The phrase "This is disgusting" reinforces that they want the regulation rejected rather than modified.


STRONGLY OPPOSE- protect our school children

The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY OPPOSE" and asks, "Please don't impose" the policy. They argue that allowing transgender students in shared facilities is a "bad idea" and propose separate single-sex and gender-neutral spaces instead, indicating rejection of the regulation as written.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY OPPOSE transgender policy," asks to "veto" the proposal, and urges officials to "refus[e] to adopt the new proposed policies." The body repeatedly argues against parental override, bathroom access, and the policy’s handling of transgender students, indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support the draft model guidance" and praises the policies as providing "basic civil rights" and "basic protections." They also endorse the goals of preventing harassment, discrimination, and bullying for transgender/nonbinary/gender fluid students.


This policy will NOT protect LGBTQ children

The commenter rejects the policy’s approach to LGBTQ students, saying they "should not be encouraged" and that the policy "will NOT protect LGBTQ children." Although they mention a preferred alternative, the overall message argues against the proposed guidance as written because it would worsen "sexual confusion" and mental health problems.


The comment explicitly says "Strongly Oppose!" which directly states the commenter’s position on the proposed transgender student policy. No supporting reasons are provided, but the stance is unambiguous.


New transgender policies: ignorance or cowardice?

The commenter uses dismissive, skeptical language about the proposed policies, asking whether officials are "too dumb to follow the science" or "being cowed by political correctness." The final question, "Have we thought through the ramifications of these policies?" signals opposition or at least strong doubt about adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "This is a terrible idea" and "I don’t agree with any of these proposed changes to school policy," which clearly rejects the regulation. Although they support anti-bullying and student safety measures, those are framed as alternatives to the proposal rather than support for it.


The commenter explicitly says, "This is a wonderful policy, and I support it whole-heartedly." They also state that it "will protect and help transgender students" and "without infringing on the rights of cis students," indicating clear approval of adoption.


The commenter explicitly says the policy "will be very beneficial to trans students" and is "pleased that FCPS could have this in place for future students." They also frame it as helping students feel "safe, welcome, and protected," which clearly supports adoption.


The commenter explicitly states, "Strongly Oppose the VDOE draft Transgender policy," which directly indicates rejection of the proposed regulation. The repetition of the same phrase leaves no ambiguity about their position.


There's a reason mental health continues to deteriorate in this nation

The commenter explicitly says that "Supporting policies like this" worsens mental health and that they will seek "an alternative school system" rather than allow their children to be exposed to it. The comment frames the policy as "sinful ideology" and says it should not be part of the school system, indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly rejects the proposal, calling it "outrageous, disgusting" and asking, "How dare the schools allow adolescent males into ladies' bathrooms?" They argue the document "empowers" predators and says it will harm "girls," indicating clear opposition to adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support the VDOE model policy" and endorses "the protection of transgender and other nonbinary students." They also state these students deserve education "free of harassment and discrimination," which clearly favors adoption of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly concludes, "I am in support," and repeatedly argues that the policies are "in the interests of justice to pursue." They praise the policies for treating transgender students with dignity, preventing discrimination, and promoting inclusion for all students.


The commenter explicitly says, "I am strongly opposed to the DOE proposed transgender policy" and states they will not send their child to a school that follows it. They object to privacy/confidentiality provisions and private conversations with the child "without my consent," framing the policy as removing parental authority.


The commenter says they "strongly object" to the proposal and explicitly calls it "extreme and unacceptable." They argue it would interfere with "parental rights," create "privacy issues" for bathrooms/locker rooms, and conflict with religious conscience, all of which indicate rejection of the regulation.


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


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support the measures outlined by this policy proposal" and calls the protections "long overdue." They also argue the schools should "do all they can to support" transgender students, indicating clear approval of adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "we strongly oppose the VDOE implementing this transgender policy," which directly rejects adoption. They also argue that "the government has no right" to override parents and object to "allowing both genders to use the same bathroom," indicating opposition to the policy's core provisions.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY AGREE" and uses affirming language like "TRANS RIGHTS ARE HUMAN RIGHTS," indicating clear support for the proposed policies. The phrase "EVERYBODY PEES" appears to endorse inclusive bathroom access and related protections.


Oppose Proposed Virginia Public School Model Policies for Treatment of Transgender Students

The commenter explicitly says, "I oppose the proposed Virginia public school model policies" and repeatedly argues the policies should not be put in place. They describe the proposal as "overreach," lacking "common sense," and contrary to the purpose of schools, indicating clear rejection rather than support or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly says "strongly support!!" twice, which clearly indicates approval of the proposed regulation. No contrary language or qualifications are present.


The commenter explicitly says, "I am opposed to this policy" and states it "should not be passed." They argue it is unrelated to academics, undermines women's rights, and will "remove their title 9 sports," all indicating rejection of the regulation.


Oppose! Goal: Preserve Innocence & Promote Mental Health

The commenter explicitly opens with "Oppose!" and repeatedly argues the policy should be replaced or weakened, asking to "create a policy" that preserves privacy and parental control instead. They object to restroom/locker room access, call the policy "unacceptable," and say it should not "incorporate a few while disrespecting the majority."


The commenter explicitly says "strongly support," which directly indicates approval of the regulation. The insult toward opponents does not change the clear pro-adoption stance.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Support" and repeatedly endorses the policy, e.g. "We must treat transgender students with the same respect" and "Let's make it the official policy." The comment argues the guidance will help trans students feel safe and learn without hiding, which is clear approval of adoption.


Reject Model Policies on Transgender that will cause serious harm to children and undermine families

The commenter explicitly says "Reject Model Policies" and repeatedly argues the policies are harmful, politically motivated, and should not be used. They state the policies "cause serious harm to children and undermine families" and criticize the guidance as lacking evidence and expertise.


Support Proposed Protections For Transgender Students

The commenter explicitly says the guidelines "provide reasonable and lawful support for transgender students" and urges that "We should all support" them. They also praise specific provisions like protecting personal information and fair, gender-neutral dress code enforcement.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Support HB 145, SB 161" and argues the legislation would help students feel "accepted, and safe in the school environment." They frame the policy as reducing barriers and potentially "save lives," which clearly supports adoption.


Strongly Support Policy Protections For Transgender Students

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support this policy" and argues it is "critical for kiddos to feel safe and welcome in school." They also endorse specific protections like using a student's "correct pronouns and chosen name" and say policies are needed to "support and protect" transgender students.


Support - helping marginalized population

The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support this guidance document" and repeatedly argues that it will help transgender and non-binary students. They also urge adoption by describing it as a way to create a "supportive environment" and reduce harm to LGBTQ+ students.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose the VDOE draft transgender policy," which directly rejects adoption of the regulation. The additional phrase "Stick to teaching the basics and stop indoctrinating the agenda du jour" reinforces opposition to the policy's inclusion in schools.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support this" and endorses the policy’s purpose of respectful treatment for all students. They also reference preventing "bullying or harassment," which aligns with the regulation’s goals.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support the policies that are being outlined here." They also endorse the underlying goals by praising "acceptance and tolerance" and teaching students to accept people "regardless of who they are or who they love."


The commenter explicitly says, "You all need to scrap these silly ideas and go back to the drawing board," which is a clear rejection of the proposed policies. They object to pronoun requirements and to allowing transgender students to use facilities and teams aligned with their gender identity, indicating opposition to the regulation as written.


The commenter explicitly says, "We adamantly oppose" the proposed policies and urges VDOE to "drop the proposed transgender policies." They argue the policies violate parents' rights, undermine teacher authority, and create bathroom and pronoun concerns, all indicating rejection of the regulation.


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

The commenter explicitly says, "Strongly oppose" the model policies. The statement that "The entire premise is false" indicates rejection of the regulation rather than support or a neutral question.


The commenter states plainly, "I oppose the proposed Transgender Guidelines," which directly expresses rejection of the regulation. No qualifying language suggests support or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support this initiative" and endorses the regulation as a way to "foster a more inclusive environment for transgender students." This is a clear approval of adoption.


Strongly Support the inclusion of the Model Policies for the Treatment of Students

The commenter explicitly says, "I see every reason to support the inclusion of the Model Policies" and the title states "Strongly Support." They also frame the policies as protecting children from "ridicule, unequal treatment or discrimination" and advocating for LGBTQ+ students.


The commenter explicitly says, "Please vote against this" and argues the policy "goes against scripture," indicating clear opposition to adoption. They also characterize the policy as harmful, saying it leads to "high depression and suicide rates" and should be replaced with "other ways" to help children.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly OPPOSE both of these actions in the state of VA," indicating clear rejection of the regulation. They also object to bathroom access and pronoun-related accommodations, calling them "childish" and "a waste of time and money."


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Oppose" and states the policy "should not be policies in the school." They argue it "goes against parental rights and also religious freedoms," indicating rejection of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose" and asks, "Please do not circumvent my parental rights." They object to educators and organizations "push[ing] their own beliefs and values upon my children," indicating rejection of the proposed policies.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support the development of a guidance document" and repeats "I support trans rights and trans accessibility to safe schools." This is clear approval of the regulation and its goals, not a question or neutral input.


Strongly Disagree- Too young to allow them to make a life decision like this

The commenter explicitly says "Strongly Disagree" and argues that allowing students to decide their gender identity is "not right and can be very harmful." They also claim the policy would be harmful to teens and society, indicating clear opposition to the regulation.


Strong Support from Parent of 2 Daughters for Model Policies for Treatment of Transgender Students

The commenter explicitly says they "whole-heartedly support the Model Policies" and "look forward to it being fully applied across all Virginia public schools." They also state they "look forward to these model policies' adoption and implementation," indicating clear approval rather than a request for changes or opposition.


The commenter explicitly says, "Totally in support of this proposed guidance" and praises it as "fact based." They also state that it "provides the basics to help develop a safe environment for all minds to flourish" and "does not infringe on anyone else," indicating clear approval.


The commenter explicitly says, "I am strongly against these guidelines" and "This must not happen," which clearly rejects adoption. They also argue the policies will "destroy our young people" and threaten privacy and parental authority, indicating opposition to the regulation as written.


Strongly oppose the Model Policies for the Treatment of Transgender Students

The commenter explicitly says, "Strongly oppose" and asks to "Reject the Model Policies." They also state the policies are "harmful to children" and "undermine the rights of parents and families," which clearly indicates opposition to adoption.


The commenter says, "I strongly disagreed with trans people using alternate bathrooms," which clearly اعتراضs to a key part of the transgender student policies. This indicates they want the regulation weakened or rejected, at least regarding bathroom access.


The commenter says they are "very concerned about the separation of parents from their children" and objects to the absence of policies requiring parent notification when a student changes pronouns. This indicates opposition to the proposed guidance as written, especially its handling of parental involvement and student identity decisions.


The commenter explicitly states "STRONGLY SUPPORT" and "I support transgender youth," which clearly endorses the regulation. The cited statistics about transgender students feeling unsafe at school are used to justify support for protections and supportive policies.


The commenter explicitly says, "Please vote NO to this bill!" and argues it would "infringe on parents rights" and "create an unsafe environment for my kids," which clearly indicates opposition to adoption. The appeal to "Virginia parents" reinforces that they want the regulation rejected.


Strongly opposed!  Very concerned for ALL our children

The commenter explicitly says, "I STRONGLY ask that you oppose this bill and any others like it!" They acknowledge transgender students should be "cared for and protected," but argue the policy would create "unintended consequences and dangers" and "compromis[e] the safety of others."


The commenter explicitly says, "Please vote NO to this bill," which is a direct rejection of the proposed regulation. The phrase "think of children not politics" reinforces opposition rather than support or a neutral inquiry.


Disagree - Protect All Virginia Students & Educators

The commenter explicitly says, "I profoundly disagree with the policy writers" and urges lawmakers to "revisit these policies," indicating opposition to adoption. They argue the policies mandate affirmation, threaten "free speech" and "freedom of religion," and ask why Virginia is trading away these values for the proposed rules.


The commenter explicitly states, "I strongly oppose this bill," which directly indicates opposition to adoption. No additional qualifications or support for amendments are provided.


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


Opposed - this can be done better to accommodate all persons and beliefs

The commenter explicitly labels the submission "Opposed" and says the policies "do not have the best interest of children at heart." They ask leaders to "come up with a better solution" and object to the guidance as written, especially regarding restroom and locker room access.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support this guidance." They also criticize opposition based on "religious freedom" as an "excuse to oppose this," indicating clear approval of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly states "I Support" and adds that "All children should be protected and provided a safe environment for learning," which aligns with adopting the regulation. There is no language opposing or questioning the policy.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support this bill" and further endorses the policy as "a needed step" toward inclusion. The comment clearly favors adoption of the regulation as written.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY OPPOSE" and argues the guidelines are "enabling" a "disorder" rather than helping children. They ask, "why is it any different here," and say the policy is "exacerbating a already toxic problem," which clearly rejects adoption of the regulation.


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

The commenter explicitly says these policies are "a model for psychological & emotional abuse of children" and states that any policy requiring people to violate their beliefs "must be vigorously opposed." They repeatedly argue the proposal should not be adopted, calling it an unconstitutional mandate and urging schools to "let the parents do their job of parenting."


The commenter explicitly says "fully support" and expresses excitement about measures that would help transgender students. The statement that it would make it easier for "others like me" and help them avoid "growing up hating themselves" clearly endorses adoption of the policy.


The commenter explicitly says "STRONGLY SUPPORT!" and urges that "We need to support Trans individuals" and "protecting them with proper legislation." The comment clearly endorses the proposed policies, especially for "Trans kids and teens."


The commenter explicitly says, "I am strongly against these new transgender policies" and "Strongly oppose." They argue the policies "endanger female students" and violate "students' religious rights," indicating rejection of the regulation rather than support with changes.


The commenter explicitly says, "I do NOT approve of your proposed guidelines" and calls the policies "totally unworkable," indicating clear opposition to adoption. The language also asks to reject the guidance as "radical theories" and "empirically false," reinforcing a strongly negative position.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly disagree with this" and states they will not allow their child to be involved in public school if it is approved. The final line, "stop this nonsense," indicates clear opposition to adopting the policy.


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


OPPOSE!!!!! People need to wake up this is rediculous!!!!

The commenter explicitly says "OPPOSE!!!!!" and states "There no place in schools for this nonsense," which clearly rejects the regulation. The remark that it "will create more problems for our children" further indicates opposition to adoption.


Support & Protect Trans + LGBTQ+ young people!!!

The commenter explicitly says, "I SUPPORT THIS PROPOSED LEGISLATION!!" and repeatedly urges Virginia to "protect, support, & affirm trans youth." The rest of the comment gives reasons for approval, describing the policy as "life-saving" and an "important step" toward a supportive environment.


The commenter explicitly says "COMPLETELY SUPPORT" and adds that "Trans students deserve to live their life as their true self and be fully accepted by their community," which clearly endorses the regulation. There is no indication of opposition or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly states "I STRONGLY OPPOSE!!" which directly indicates rejection of the proposed regulation. No other text suggests support or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly says "VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED" and calls the policy "nothing short of child abuse," which clearly rejects adoption of the regulation. There is no indication of support or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly says "Strongly oppose!!" and argues the policy is "unnecessary and irresponsible." They object to transgender students' access to girls' bathrooms and sports, saying it will "set back women's rights and privacy."


The commenter explicitly says "Completely Support" and urges that "All students need our support and respect including trans children." They also endorse the policy’s underlying purpose by saying to show that "bigotry has no place in our society."


Vital for the Safety and Comfortability of Transgender Students

The commenter explicitly says, "I can not understate how strongly I support the passage of this bill" and states it is "vital that this bill be passed." The comment argues the policy is necessary to protect transgender and gender non-conforming students and to ensure a safe, secure, and comfortable educational environment.


The commenter explicitly labels the comment "Support" and states, "All students deserve safe schools, regardless of gender identity," which aligns with approving the proposed transgender student policies. There is no indication of opposition or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly calls the proposal "unconstitutional and completely absurd" and says it is "A BAD IDEA," which clearly indicates rejection of the regulation. The reference to it not aligning with "peoples reigous values" further supports opposition.


The commenter explicitly calls the policy "completely ridiculous and unacceptable" and says "Shame on you," indicating clear rejection. They argue that these discussions should be handled "within the confines of one’s own family not through educators" and object to the state dictating when and how to discuss these topics with children.


The commenter explicitly says, "I support the guidance," which directly endorses adoption of the regulation. The added statement, "all Virginians should be treated equally," reinforces approval of the policy's nondiscrimination purpose.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support this policy" and adds that "Transgender students need to be protected in our public schools." This is a clear endorsement of adoption.


The commenter explicitly says, "I am absolutely opposed to the new policies" and objects to "transgenders using bathrooms & locker rooms of opposite God given sex." They also argue the policies unfairly "cater[] to those the few," indicating rejection of the regulation.


Support legislation to promote health and well-being of trans youth.

The commenter explicitly says, "I fully support legislation to promote health and well-being of trans youth!" This is a clear endorsement of the regulation’s purpose and implementation. The statement that "All students deserve to feel valued and appreciated" and "safe to learn" reinforces support.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly disagree with this!" which clearly indicates opposition to the proposed regulation. No supporting reasons or requests for modification are provided, but the stance is unambiguous.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly oppose transgender in the schools," which clearly rejects the policy’s subject matter. The title "Strongly opposed" reinforces that they do not want the regulation adopted.


The commenter explicitly titles the submission "Strongly Support" and argues that schools should provide "acceptance and support" for transgender youth. They state that school support "can be the difference between life and death," clearly endorsing adoption of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "Full Support" and states there is "no other option than to support these guidelines." They also praise the policies as beneficial for "the mental and physical wellbeing of students" and say they will "make a big positive difference."


The commenter explicitly titles the submission "Strongly Oppose" and argues against accommodations for transgender students, asking "why does that have to take away my right to feel comfortable?" The comment frames the policy as infringing on others' rights and discomfort in restroom situations, indicating rejection of the regulation.


SUPPORT for anti-discrimination policies for Trans youth

The commenter explicitly says, "I fully support legislation needed to promote the health and well-being of trans youth" and calls it "important and inclusive legislation." This clearly endorses adoption of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says "Do not support" and adds "This is just wrong," which clearly indicates opposition to the proposed transgender student policies. The rhetorical question "Where has all the common sense gone???" reinforces a negative view of the regulation.


The commenter explicitly says, "I strongly support this much needed policy" and adds that it "absolutely needs to be implemented." This is a clear endorsement of adopting the guidance document as proposed.


Protect marginalized students WITHOUT violating EVERY child's rights

The commenter says the policy would be "giving rights to one group while stripping rights from another" and argues that "parents' rights" are violated by the policy. They explicitly oppose the school guidance as a coercive "agenda" and call for "school choice instead" of being forced to pay for this kind of education.


The commenter explicitly says "Support-love and acceptance for all," which clearly endorses the proposed policies. There is no language indicating opposition or neutrality.


The commenter explicitly says, "Please support this policy" and describes it as helping create a "nurturing and welcoming environment" for transgender students. This is a clear endorsement of adoption.


I fully support the protection of LGBTQ+

The commenter explicitly says they are "in full support of amending the Code of Virginia" and repeats, "Therefore, I am in full support of this amendment." They also argue the policy is needed to "address the needs of transgender students" and provide "protections for LGBTQ+ students."


The commenter explicitly says, "I applaud the DOE's proposed model policies" and calls them "a step forward," which clearly endorses adoption. The comment frames the policies as addressing "discrimination and exclusion" and helping transgender youth, indicating support rather than opposition or neutrality.


Ridiculous.... Strongly disappointed and disagree

The commenter explicitly says they "disagree" and calls the proposal "Ridiculous," which indicates opposition to adopting the regulation. There is no request for modification or neutral inquiry, just a clear negative reaction.