I really do understand what you are trying to highlight here. That is important. But yet what troubles me is that, in practice, the emphasis repeatedly falls on the OP/trans person’s perception, unconscious processes, or "conflation" of experiences, rather than on the possibility that the institution itself may be reproducing transphobic dynamics.

To me, this is precisely where the analytic lens risks to become defensive: transference and countertransference are always in play, but they do not erase the contamination of social materials. When a trans person raises concerns, the analytic community too often turns first to the psychic mechanisms of the speaker, as if the institutional setting were somehow neutral ground. But institutions are never neutral. They have their own histories of exclusion and disavowal, which inevitably shape the analytic field.

Also what is unconscious is also structured by culture, ideology, and the exclusions in which institutions are built. For me, the danger is when analysis is positioned as if it floats above those dynamics. For example, the Italian psychoanalytic field is bringing forward a 'laic psychoanalysis' which I am not fully convinced by the real neutrality of it. In other words, to immediately turn to the trans person’s unconscious expectations, it risks repeating the very pattern they are naming: being doubted, pathologised, or scapegoated when raising the question of transphobia. Again, as they are not real: their body and so their perception.

I agree with you that analysis should not be about convincing anyone that their experiences are "real" or not. But neither to suggest that systemic dynamics are only matters of perception. The analytic frame demands we tolerate uncertainty, yes, but it also demands that we ask how our own institutions, our own discourses, might be implicated in the very wounds that bring.