It's difficult to say why doctors, women and men alike, are adamant to think that a woman will be devastated without her reproductive organs. It may be simply that, under normal circumstances, most cisgendered women
would be devastated by the loss, should they have "perfectly good" organs removed before they bear any children. This would likely put the doctors in danger of being sued. In this case, it should be possible for the doctors to distinguish between a woman who
will be unable to live without the organs and those who won't. And at that, they should be able to distinguish between trans men and cisgendered women, but most simply aren't trained in that respect. Oddly, even those who
are still want to make sure, over a given amount of time, that the patient is absolutely sure.
It may just be that men sometimes envy the female ability to give birth, consider it almost sacred, and can hardly imagine why any woman would give it up. All of this considered, they never try to understand how they would feel if they had the very same organs.
Nonetheless, just as removing a tumor, an infected, painful limb, is not only legitimate but encouraged, so should be removing a uterus and ovaries when they cause extreme pain that persists year after year.
