Who Counts as a Daughter? Methods and Corrections Page
Updated: 10 hours ago
Last updated 11 October 2026. Changes to this series are logged at the bottom of this page.
This page explains who I am in relation to the subject, how I handle evidence, and whom I name. Every post in the series links here, so I don't need to repeat the rules each time.
Who I am, and my relationship to the DAR
I am Shannon Combs-Bennett, PhD, a historian and professional genealogist. My doctorate, from the University of Strathclyde, examined American hereditary lineage societies from 1970 to 2020. That research included a survey of 1,164 society members and 37 interviews.
I am a member of the National Society Daughters of the American Revolution. I serve as an officer of my chapter and hold other roles in the Society at the state and national levels.
Nothing in this series speaks for the Society, its officers, or any chapter. I write as a historian, not as a representative.
How I label evidence
Every factual claim rests on one of four kinds of evidence, and I say which:
Observed. I saw or heard it directly, in person or on a recording I reviewed.
Reported. Someone told me, but not as an on-the-record research participant. I treat these as leads, not proof.
Testimony. A research participant told me on the record, in a recorded or written response.
Documented. It appears in a publicly available source that any reader can consult.
Where the evidence conflicts, as it does on the vote count and on parts of the bylaws history, I show the conflict rather than quietly choosing a side.
Which sources I use
I rely on published sources: statutes, congressional records, the Society's published magazine and proceedings, recorded sessions, news coverage, and public statements. Where an internal governance provision is available from a source that doesn't depend on membership, I cite that source instead of the internal document.
The DAR's own published records are cited by volume, issue, and page, not by members-only web links.
I do use software tools, including AI-assisted web searching, to scan for new sources. However, I read and check every source I cite myself.
Whom I name
The rule turns on the capacity in which a person spoke, not on whether a document can be found.
Named: officers and committee chairs acting officially; anyone who has spoken on record to the press or under their own byline; delegates who addressed a national assembly from the floor; research participants who consented to be named.
Named, with care: people whose social media posts were marked public by the platform (for example, Facebook posts marked with the globe icon). These were addressed to anyone and usually written to persuade, so I quote and attribute them like any other published statement.
Not named: members posting in closed or private groups, whose posts I paraphrase rather than quote; anyone captured in a post whose visibility I can't confirm.
Never named: anyone others identify or speculate about as transgender, unless she has identified herself publicly.
Social media shows how the dispute was discussed; it does not reflect what DAR members as a whole believe.
Interviews
I wanted this research to include personal perspectives from both sides of the argument, so I reached out to DAR members on each side who had already spoken publicly on the topic.
Four members who opposed the 2026 resolution spoke with me on the record. I offered each a review of her transcript, and they agreed to its use in publication.
I also approached six people associated with the campaign to restore women-only membership. Two responded. One did not schedule an interview, and another later withdrew; neither interview appears in this series. As a result, the series contains no interview testimony from that side.
The lopsided record
The public record of this dispute is uneven. The campaign to restore women-only membership published heavily: websites, open letters, templates, and media interviews. Members who supported the outcome mostly handled disagreement privately, through letters and conversations that were never posted. Well, until recently. As a result, some events, including officers' reasoning, survive mainly through their opponents' accounts.
Corrections
I will get things wrong. When I do, I will correct the post, add a dated note explaining the change, and record it below. To report an error or offer a document, send me a note through this website.
22 October 2026. "A Chapter Disbanded the Day Before Its Meeting Date": update adding the text of Article XIX from the 2025 Bylaws and the procedural question it leaves open.
22 October 2026. Post 2, "What Happened on June 26": update adding Article VIII, Section 7 and the restoration campaign's legal memorandum.
22 October 2026. Post 3, "How the DAR Rewrites Its Own Rules": update confirming the post against the 2025 Bylaws, with added detail on amendments, special meetings, and standing rules.
22 October 2026. Post 4, "A Federal Charter Is Not What You Think It Is": update on the campaign's legal memorandum, tax exemptions, and the charter.
22 October 2026. Post 7, "What H.R. 9701 and S. 5152 Would Actually Do": update adding the current cosponsor count and the campaign's legal memorandum.
