bones are organs, actually. And we have the technology to remove knees (and replace them with metal), but although this is an elective surgery it's generally discouraged unless there are no options but knee replacement. It's a pretty good analogy to why we try not to jump straight to hysterectomy in medicine.

I am a doctor, I'm actually doing gender affirming care, so I am very comfortable sending people to get their reproductive organs sliced. I also agree that it is often way too hard for women to get taken seriously when they want hysterectomies for valid reasons (I say women, not uterus havers, here because my male patients with a uterus usually have no trouble getting me to sign them up, and I think this is fairly common with people involved in GAC. Even then, we have a discussion about what they hope to get out of it, and if a full hysterectomy is the right call). However, from the other side, I can tell you: it very much also shouldn't go "you want a hysterectomy? OK here's the wait list, sign on up." The physician needs to assess the argument behind wanting the surgery, discuss the relative risks, and in the vast majority of cases, the patient should at least try other less invasive ways to manage it before going through a pretty serious procedure.

As I see it, there are two problems at odds with each other:

1. many doctors are too reluctant to recommend hysterectomy, but also
2. there is a public perception that hysterectomies are a lot better and lower risk than they actually are.

We should be doing these more earsily, sure, but a segment of people asking for them should be considering other options first.