@Throughahedgebackwards Also, I don't think that failing to acknowledge reality is feminist. The reality is that the female reproductive system is considerably more complicated than the male one, and tasked with vastly more strenuous functions, i.e., creating and bearing new life, and consequently there are many more things that can and frequently do go wrong with it. Mother nature isn't perfect. Women are much more susceptible than men to UTIs, STDs (including HIV), general genital infections, e.g., thrush, and incontinence of both kinds. And that is without factoring in the many common complications caused by pregnancy and childbirth, e.g., approximately 6% of first-time births result in a third- or fourth-degree tear involving the anus and/or rectum.
Meanwhile, endometriosis affects at least 10% of female people of a reproductive age (and that is likely an underestimate). And fibroids have a prevalence as high as 70-80% by the age of 50!
I don't think the American system is a bad idea at all. It certainly sounds preferable to what we have in the UK, where even women with advanced diagnosed endometriosis (like me) struggle to see a gynaecologist. There are currently approximately 600,000 women on the gynaecology waiting list in the UK, which represents a greater post-Covid increase than for any other medical specialty (surprise, surprise). And that doesn't include the large numbers of women who will just be suffering in silence and not seeking medical help for their problems.
The truth is that gynaecological problems are extremely common and affect almost all women at different points in their lives, but the only ones that receive routine attention in the UK are cancers, including the relatively rare cervical cancer, which carries an estimated lifetime risk of 1 in 142. If it's highly unlikely to kill a woman (even if it might make her wish for death), our health system doesn't care much.