Psychoanalysis immunes itself with the impregnable wall of symbolic[ism], despite creating a level playing field of having multiple symbolic connotations. In a nutshell, one cannot afford to discount the plethora of analysis. This is a boon and a bane and could even co-exist, be compossible.
The trunk of Ganesha as a weak phallus, at the wrong place and therefore devoid of all potency on the one hand is accorded a co-planar ontology with his being a transgender thriving on oral sex. I do understand the repulsion caused in the insider with such a treatment given to a deity, but, it makes good sense, if one goes by the Lacanian dictum of ‘Symbolic’ as the radical alterity, the radical ‘Other’. Therein, the dislodging of the ‘insider’ by the insinuating alterity, or , ‘other’, through causing repulsion could meet its counterpoint only in the mirror (as in lateral inversion), where, the roles would undergo switching of responsibilities, in that of an ‘insider’ versus the ‘other’. Such a reaction from the ‘insider’ to the ‘other’ would succeed in fighting the tenuous proof with something equally tenuous, or would raise stakes. Personally, I feel for such a psychoanalytical reading as fecund for thought, even if on the surface, most of it appears preposterous.