In the ongoing saga of a small segment of the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR) pushing to include men, there was an interesting new development. A friend sent this link a few weeks ago: Dispute Over Transgender Members Rattles Daughters of the American Revolution. As a new member of DAR just last year who knew nothing about this ahead of time, I found some interesting bits in the article.

And, by the way, I never received any reply to my letter I mentioned in More Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR) Controversy (and this is really bad). I didn’t expect one from the national level, but I was disappointed that no one from the local chapter responded. It would appear they truly are operating under threat of retaliation if they discuss this with anyone. 

Daughters of the American Revolution Integrity Act

So, first of all, two members of the House of Representatives have taken up the cause of the women fighting to keep the organization women-only.

Last month, Rep. Ben Cline (R-Va.) and Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) introduced the Daughters of the American Revolution Integrity Act.

If approved, it would amend DAR’s 1896 congressional charter to expressly block males from membership.

The charter also federally protects DAR’s name and insignia and allows DAR to ask the Smithsonian Institution to accept its historic materials.

Further, the charter permits DAR to “acquire, own, lease, encumber, and transfer property” as desired. That is notable because the group’s headquarters—including a museum, convention hall, and other buildings—occupy an entire city block just west of the White House.

When announcing his bill, Cline contended that the organization has veered off course.

“Rather than honoring and preserving a lineage-based organization for women, it has embraced radical gender ideology at the expense of the women it was created to serve,” he said in a statement.

Blackburn said her proposal intends to “stop the organization from erasing biological reality and ensure it is reserved for the real daughters of the American Revolution.”

I did not realize that DAR depends on a congressional charter. The point about the property is important. I cannot imagine what that block and those massive buildings are worth.

DAR Leadership Showing Favoritism

But this was just as interesting to me as a member (bold mine).

McDonald said she spent a year earnestly seeking answers to her questions about the transgender-acceptance practice. After “getting nowhere,” she felt compelled to go public and create Daughters Advocating for Restoration in 2024.

Now a nonprofit, the group is “dedicated to restoring, preserving, and promoting women-only membership in historical women-only societies,” its website says.

The restoration group is pushing for “exclusive female-at-birth membership for historic women-only societies so that they may thrive free from external pressures.”

Over a two-year period, its Facebook group grew to 19,000 members.

A faction opposing the Restoration group, “Daughters for Inclusivity,” has drawn 3,600 members to its Facebook group since it was started in March.

Facebook rosters show that DAR’s top leader, Ginnie Sebastian Storage, joined the Inclusivity group five months ago, shortly after it formed; her name is absent from the Restoration group’s list of members.

First, the members overwhelmingly do not want this. Those numbers aren’t even close. My understanding is that DAR has also suffered from an exodus of members over the past few years because of this situation. So in addition to lost members, potential members who chose not to join because of this, and members like me who aren’t on Facebook, the numbers clearly show the women do not want this rammed down their throats. 

Second, I’ve held numerous top leadership positions (president, etc.) in a wide variety of situations that were both Christian and otherwise. The fact that the DAR national leader is in one Facebook group and not the other is appalling. 

At the very least, a wise leader would be in both groups just to keep an eye on things.

It would also avoid giving the appearance that she is picking sides. But, clearly, based on her letter to the members she is not concerned about looking biased where this issue is concerned. She has made it more than clear that she is promoting the side opposed by the overwhelming majority of members. 

How can the membership trust her to truthfully guide the organization through this when she has openly championed one side over the other? 

Calls for a DAR Special Meeting Ignored

The article continues:

McDonald also faults the process that brought the vote to the floor of the DAR’s annual Continental Congress.

Nearly 5,000 members came to DAR’s headquarters—the largest turnout in the group’s history, according to a DAR social media post.

Instead, a special meeting should have been convened solely to address the transgender dispute, McDonald said.

She said that on three occasions, 122 chapters in 34 states have called for such a meeting.

Because that groundswell of support exceeds a 10-state, 30-chapter threshold, McDonald and others argue that DAR violated its own rules when it called a vote at the convention rather than at a special meeting.

The reason you have rules and procedures it to protect everyone involved. I remember a few times working through difficult decisions. My default is always that you follow the clear meaning of the constitution, bylaws, etc.

If people don’t like the outcome, they can work to change it. But if you follow the letter of the law everyone agreed to as members, as the leader you cannot be blamed for the outcome when people are unhappy with the decision.

Members may not be happy with you, but they cannot blame you when you follow procedures. 

The fact that the national organization is apparently thumbing their nose at established guidelines is also hard to fathom. 

I’ve said to David and Caroline multiple times that this sounds more like the mafia than a patriotic women’s organization.

It boggles the mind.