The National Federation of Republican Women, NFRW, finds itself entangled in a challenging cultural conundrum, emblematic of today’s contentious question: “What defines a woman?”
This inquiry has sparked a divisive debate within the organization as it grapples with a grassroots initiative to formalize its membership criteria as exclusively biological females.
The proposal, which aims to prevent transgender individuals who identify as women from joining the NFRW as voting members and leaders, has met surprising resistance from the national leadership.
The proposed bylaws amendment, designed to limit NFRW voting membership to those biologically female at birth, has faced a discouraging fate.
NFRW’s national president, Eileen Sobjack, acting on counsel from the organization’s legal team, expressed concerns that pursuing this amendment might lead to costly litigation and potentially jeopardize the organization.
A confidential source within the NFRW shared this insight with WND, asserting that addressing the issue could spell the end of the organization.
In contrast, the Arkansas Federation of Republican Women (ARFRW) has taken proactive steps to safeguard the authenticity of their women-only spaces. Their bylaws unequivocally define a woman as someone born a DNA biological female at birth. Nevertheless, the NFRW’s national leadership remains cautious about adopting such a stance.
Laura Carlson, a prominent figure within the Iowa Federation of Republican Women, is at the forefront of the movement advocating for NFRW alignment with a cause widely supported within the GOP – preserving women’s spaces from perceived encroachment by transgender individuals.
Carlson, who holds the position of 2nd vice-president for the Iowa Federation of Republican Women, has raised concerns dating back to 2021 when a transgender woman attended an NFRW convention as a voting delegate, triggering numerous complaints. Unfortunately, these concerns received limited attention from the organization’s leadership.
In Carlson’s correspondence to “Republican Women Friends,” she wrote, “NFRW holds a prestigious, time-honored tradition of leading, supporting and honoring women in the promotion of shared Republican values. My concern is the promotion of transgender propaganda in our clubs.”
“I am not discussing lesbian issues; this is a transgender issue. I live in a college area. Liberals infiltrate groups often here,” Carlson continued in her letter. “They are now declaring themselves women to make a change in the GOP. They are not conservatives. They did not vote Republican in any election.”
“The goal is to force the Republicans to bend to the transgender agenda, which puts liberal men in our clubs,” Carlson wrote.
Carlson did indicate in an interview with WND that she was not speaking as an official for the Iowa FRW, but rather for herself.
“Why is NFRW allowing itself to be manipulated?” Carlson questions in her letter. “I joined NFRW because it was a women’s leadership program … I joined NFRW because I respect the women in the state leadership.”
Carlson contends that “promoting men into full membership dilute women’s clubs. This weakens clubs.”
The dispute has also highlighted divisions within various state branches of NFRW. Notably, the New Jersey Federation of Republican Women (NJFRW) faced controversy in 2019 when it nominated a male-to-female transgender activist, Pam Daniels, as “Woman of the Year.”
Daniels subsequently ran for Congress as an independent, pledging to caucus with Democrats if elected but ultimately receiving minimal support and losing the election.
Some NFRW members in certain states have taken issue with what they perceive as the promotion of “transgender propaganda” within the organization. They contend that such actions dilute the mission of women’s clubs and weaken their overall impact.
In response to these concerns, NFRW’s national leadership has invoked legal counsel, which cautions against explicitly limiting the organization’s membership to biological females.
According to attorney Rick Adams, such a move could potentially expose the NFRW to costly legal challenges, despite its constitutional rights to freedom of speech and expression.
In a statement, Adams said, “By amending the bylaws I fear you may be putting a target on your back, versus leaving well enough alone…. In addition, it could be argued that your bylaws are eminently clear already. ‘Women’ certainly means born female to most people. Is it really necessary to define the term?”
Conservative constitutional attorney John Eidsmoe, in an interview with Laura Carlson on the “Tamara Scott Show,” advised that the NFRW, as a private organization, has the right to establish its own membership bylaws, much like the Boy Scouts of America. He opined that this stance would likely prevail in a legal challenge, even if it were to reach the Supreme Court.
While the legal debate rages on, NFRW president Eileen Sobjack remains resolute in her stance. She asserts that the organization’s survival takes precedence, implying that addressing the “what is a woman” issue head-on could potentially spell the end of the NFRW.
Despite this divisive internal struggle, one thing is clear: The NFRW is caught in a complex web of competing interests, with many members advocating for an unyielding commitment to traditional gender definitions.
The issue will certainly not disappear as activists in favor or preserving the definition of “women” as biological are taking notice.
Riley Gaines commented on “X”, “This is disheartening. I’ll be attending some NFRW events soon where I’ll be very clear on why this is unacceptable.”
The real question becomes is anyone really willing to take a stand? What is the point of a women’s Republican organization if it is not comprised of actual, biological women?
