You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
Ken Corbett's article “Homosexual Boyhood: Notes on Girlyboys” is replete with bias, distortion, and inaccuracy. It calls for detailed response in light of widespread interest in psychoanalytic theories of gender identity/role and sexual orientation. It is particularly important for clinicians and clinical theorists to maintain high standards of scholarship since their writings may influence clinical practice.
Early in the article Dr. Corbett states:
In recognition of the preliminary nature of my efforts to conceive homosexual boyhood, I have organized the latter half of this paper as notes on girlyboys. It is my hope that presenting this material in the form of notes will afford me greater freedom, while appropriately conveying the preliminary nature of my efforts. The note form—unfettered by an essay's demand for sequence and reason—seems more in keeping with the subjectivity I am attempting to capture. It is witless to be completely solemn about girlyboys, for solemnity runs counter to the extravagance and liberty that imbue girlyboy play [pp. 433-434].
This startling revelation is inconsistent with Dr. Corbett's obvious desire to be taken seriously as a critic of gender theory. Although he would surely not document a patient's treatment plan in the form of preliminary, not necessarily well-reasoned “notes,” he seeks to do so