DAUGHTERS of the American Revolution dissolves TX chapter that fought transgender membership

BS BULLETIN

DAR voted October 10 to dissolve Texas’ Martha Laird Chapter, which challenged transgender membership eligibility.
National leadership says misuse of chapter resources for a separate advocacy organization—not members’ opinions—prompted the decision.
The women retain individual membership. Their chapter does not.

Apparently, a revolution over the meaning of “Daughters” is a little too revolutionary for the Daughters of the American Revolution.

DAR’s national board voted by a two-thirds majority Saturday to dissolve the Martha Laird Chapter in Texas. The chapter had challenged transgender membership eligibility.

DAR says officers improperly used chapter authority and resources to advance a separate advocacy organization. It denies punishing their views and says the women retain individual membership and may pursue changes through its procedures.

That is the organization’s explanation. It is an important distinction, and it deserves to be stated. It also leaves a question worth asking: what specific conduct made dissolving the chapter the appropriate response?

For critics, the result speaks loudly even if national leadership insists the reason is procedural.

The leadership of Daughters of the American Revolution is so focused on transing the formerly female organization that they just disbanded the chapter leading efforts against the transing of DAR.

— Mollie (@MZHemingway) October 10, 2026

Conservative California superintendent candidate Sonja Shaw put the question bluntly: “Why should women be punished for standing up for the very definition of the organization they belong to?”

DAR disputes that characterization. But it is hardly surprising that women who oppose its membership policy would see the dissolution as a warning to dissenters.

The underlying fight is no mystery. A Martha Laird proposal prepared for the 2026 Continental Congress sought to require an applicant to attest that her submitted birth certificate accurately records her biological female sex and parentage.

The proposal’s rationale invoked the founders’ intent to create a women’s genealogical society, historic preservation, and the importance of reliable biological records. The advocates’ document page says that the proposal was rejected by the national board in February 2026.

The argument has already reached Congress.

Rep. Ben Cline, R-Va., introduced the Daughters of the American Revolution Membership Integrity Act in July. Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., and Republican colleagues introduced a Senate version later that month. The legislation would amend DAR’s federal charter to restrict eligibility to biological women who otherwise meet its membership requirements.

In the announcement of the Senate legislation, Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, said: “It’s right there in the title: ‘DAUGHTERS’ of the American Revolution.”

Yes, the title used to do rather a lot of explanatory work.

Beth Parlato, senior legal counsel of Independent Women, offered another straightforward argument in Cline’s July announcement: “Women have the legal right to maintain institutions, spaces, and opportunities of their own.”

Those remarks preceded the chapter’s dissolution. They show that the argument over DAR’s identity was already bigger than one Texas chapter.

The chapter is gone. The dispute over what “Daughters” means is very much alive.

MY QUICK TAKE

A women’s organization should be able to remain a women’s organization. That position does not require hostility toward transgender people. It requires a willingness to recognize that biological sex can matter to an institution’s identity.

What frustrates me is the familiar demand that women surrender their own definitions and call it progress. Then, when they object, the conversation becomes a maze of procedures, permissions, and approved channels.

DAR says this decision concerned misuse of resources. Then show members the specifics. Explain why dissolution was warranted. A claim of procedural neutrality deserves scrutiny, just as an accusation of retaliation does.

But the larger principle should not get buried under a stack of bylaws: women are entitled to defend institutions built around their shared history. An organization honoring the American Revolution ought to understand why its members might have a few convictions they refuse to surrender.