What I do wish, however, is that the anti-circ people would be a little less unkind in their choice of words. "Mutilated" and "butchered" are terrible things to say to a person, and those words always cause a nasty catfight, because the circumcised men respond with "nasty", "disgusting", "unclean", and so on. And then the moderators have to come in and clean up.
The phrase “Genital Mutilation” was coined by the US Government when congress created the Anti-Female Genital Mutilation laws in the 90s.
This law was passed despite the fact that the most common form of female circumcision is physiologically on par with male circumcision (removing the clitoral hood = removing the foreskin). This form of female circumcision comprises the vast majority of the procedures practiced annually around the globe.
Unlike male circumcision, there are several varieties of female circumcision.
Only about 5% of female circumcisions are of the total-genital removal we so often hear reported by the media, and thus most people imagine this is the only type of female circumcision. In truth, this extreme and obscure variety is limited to mostly the Sub Sahara.
In the greater majority of nations on earth, you can take your infant daughter to a hospital and have her circumcised just like you can do with your son in the Western hemisphere.
Personally, I agree with the US government that the word "mutilate" is a perfectly accurate description for the practice of strapping a healthy infant to a table and amputating a perfectly functional body part, leaving them scarred for life.
However, for purely politic reasons, I avoid using the word here. (Aside: I've never used the word "butchered" and I'd agree that it seems intentionally inflammatory.)
As for religious practices... I take a realists approach to the topic. The fact is, I
do care about what happens to children within religious communities; not just in the way of circumcision but also in the way of limited education and stunted social growth (like the Amish). However, I also understand that no government in modern history has been able to legislate-away religious traditions and practices. It simply does not work. Instead, meaningful change must -- and can only -- come from within these communities.
To that end I support the various branches of rapidly growing Reform Judaism and Islam, many of which oppose the religious practice of infant circumcision. And that is as much as I feel I can effectively do, since I am not a member of either of these communities myself.
But on the topic of non-Religious and purely cosmetic Routine Infant Circumcision, I have a lot to say.
I don’t need to lie. I don’t need to invoke hyperbole or hysteria. I strive not to offer emotional charged prose.
I can summarize my position with a single phrase:
My Body, My Choice.
Having said all of this: I don’t consider it my business if an adult wants to be circumcised for aesthetics, or needs to be for medical reasons. I don’t care if that adult is male or female. I also don’t care if they want to get tattoos. I’d not consider a mans circumcised status (whether done as an infant or an adult) important to how I feel about him.
All that is important to me is that adults leave children’s genitals alone and keep the knives away from them.
Cut or uncut, I don't care, as long as he knows how to use it. (And if he doen't, I can teach him how... 
)
