This is a really interesting paper, lots to talk about, but a few specific things caught my eye.
Someone on another thread in the last few days made mention of how much trouble many people who push gender ideology seem to have with metaphor and representation. (That's not the exact term that was used, but that was the sense.)
It struck me that was very insightful and worth more than just a casual mention, that it had some real importance in understanding who is attracted to this way of thinking, and why.
There are a few points in the paper that seemed to me to hint at similar kinds of things:
Maya’s inability to symbolize her experience provoked a concretizing countertransference.
When gender identity is taken as empirical fact, the metaphor becomes concretized and we lose the ability to relate to our inner world in a symbolic way. When metaphors are made literal, the literal body becomes a vehicle for metaphoric expression (Bret Alderman, personal communication).Maya’s inability to symbolize her experience provoked a concretizing countertransference.
Also, the story about Snow White.
We live in a society that takes a very literalistic view of reality. Even many religious people have a relatively concertized understanding of their religion and it's texts. On the other hand high art, and music have become less narrative and in some cases so abstract that it's difficult to use them as any kind of window for meaning. Or they are mainly self-reflecting.
And then young people are less literate, in terms of the arts, of history, and few have any real knowledge of western religious traditions that teach the essential unity of soul and body. And they have no access to the language that tradition developed to talk about our internal experience of alienation from the self and the world.
The gaps are filled by tictok and anime, and for the really literary kids, things like Star Wars. Which seems to feed the flight from reality, for many.