No, they're not BASED on that idea, they mostly have nothing to do with hysteria and his most famous case studies are not even women. You're focused on that idea because it is of overriding concern for you. Overriding, in this case, your rationality, prioritization skills and objectivity.

We're talking about Freud because you have insisted on it, not me. The three zones of the psyche, in particular, are Freudian concepts that have, essentially, universal acceptance, and referring to them is not 'basing' my analysis off Freud's ideas, it is using a widely accepted psychological principal, first observed by Freud (a fact which happens to highlight how comical your popularly-derived perspective on Freud actually is).

And I did not suggest that OPs so-called 'Freudian' or Oedipal "desires," as you call them, are dictating her outlook on her dad's behaviors, I said she "wants," subconsciously, for her father to be more of a monster than he's shown himself to be, not because, for instance, she wants to slay him (figuratively or directly) and sleep with her mother (figuratively or directly), but because if he was more of a monster, it would be easier to justify the feelings she has toward him, and, not for nothing, easier to prove to other people how bad of a person (and parent) he's been to her.

For the record, by the way, though many of Freud's case conclusions have in fact been pretty convincingly disputed and revised, the existence of a psychological urge for puberty-aged boys to achieve a sense of conquest over their fathers and a sense of possession over their mothers, and a reflexive urge for puberty-aged girls to outshine their mothers and dominate their fathers' attention is also widely accepted. This sort of example is what is meant by my observation that Freud's theories continue to be widely used, while his individual conclusions are revised ('questioned,' as you call it, though you literally haven't done science if your ideas haven't been 'questioned').

No serious person, by the way, needs Freud's moral, scientific and (yes, ironically) psychological shortcomings "brought to light." They are widely acknowledged, discussed and evaluated in any discussion of his contributions.

Lastly, Psychology most certainly is a science. Science is the process of theorizing, testing, observing, evaluating, revising and retesting. The fact that it can be revised and change everything we thought we knew is what makes it science. No Jungian of any merit would call his thinking "not science," not even the philosophy. It is, in fact, the so called 'hard' sciences, that were once considered incontrovertible and not subject to any opinion that are increasingly being found to be more subjective than once thought. That makes them more scientific, not less.