@derpayatz @jessmahler Even when circumcisions aren't botched, you're still removing a lot of erogenous tissue from someone who can't consent, and getting rid of the protective and mechanical gliding functions of the foreskin. In my case, it wouldn't have been possible to tell it was botched until puberty started, you don't know how much someone will grow when they are cut as an infant or child. In the US, there's no legal requirement for hospitals to keep track of or report botched circumcisions, even if they lead to the death of a child.
The operations performed on intersex children are often much worse. This person was castrated as an infant without their consent: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yHAYOvTdMI Their mother was pressured into it by doctors, because of a slightly higher risk of cancer, even though that risk is much lower than the rate of breast cancer for cis women.

@theonefreeman @jessmahler I don't think that circumcision—the removal of some erogenous tissue—is equivalent to genital mutilation or intersex surgery, in which the body is fundamentally altered and whole organs are removed, and sometimes lifelong pain caused deliberately.

Just as the individual has the right to engage in body modification with pros and cons, I think that the community has the right to mark its members.

@theonefreeman @jessmahler and like I said, the situation in the US, with "medical" circumcisions with little training or oversight, is a problem. I think that the circumcision at birth of infants without parental initiative, not to mention consent, is not acceptable. But a ban without a religious exemption is not acceptable either.