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.
I find myself in conflict regarding the direction to take in this discussion which involves the work of three respected colleagues. As I carefully read Layton's contribution, I started noting the many places in her critique of Bassin and Stimmel that I felt involved a misperception in need of clarification. I do not believe that Bassin and Stimmel have been well understood in their own context and terms; key ideas are misinterpreted and their significant contributions underappreciated. I believe these misunderstandings are due to Layton's position outside the theory that Bassin and Stimmel are working within and aiming to extend.
However, when I envisioned trying to respond to each of these points (which I trust Bassin and Stimmel will address in detail), I feared that such a project of attempting to clarify many subtleties in theory would (1) take up all the space available to me to respond and (2) position me in opposition to Layton, when actually I share many similar concerns and perspectives with her regarding heterosexual assumptions in gender theory. I feel aligned with each of what have been set up by Layton's text and tone as two opposing sides. Obviously, no requirement exists for Layton to be immersed in a given theory, but a problem exists in forwarding a critique that is heard if one is perceived as not having a sophisticated grasp of the central tenets of the theory in question. I think Layton would likely be dismissed by a more mainstream psychoanalytic readership.
A dismissal would be unfortunate, for Layton makes a number of important points that we would all want to consider carefully regarding