Ferdinand wrote what he thinks about “‘intactivism,’ opposition to circumcising boys when they’re too young to decide for themselves.”
I was circumcised when I was eight days old and I’m glad it was done, not for religious reasons but because in my experience more girls appreciate when it’s been done. It caused me no trauma, according to my parents. They like to joke that the mohel’s nickname was “Shaky,” but from what I can tell, he did a perfectly fine job. If I weren’t circumcised already, I would very strongly consider having it done for its appeal to girls, and I’d almost certainly have it done because of how important it is to the Jewish people.
Ferdinand and I are about the same age and I think it was done as a matter of course for the vast majority of boys in our generation, which I’d consider “baby boom echo” (my parents were born in 1951 and 1952). But I also think that boys a few years older and a few years younger were much less likely to be circumcised.
I don’t really get worked up for or against banning circumcision except to the extent that it is a bellwether for where “men’s rights” is heading. I’m uncomfortable with “rights” as the concept around which to build any movement, especially one that seeks essentially to be reactionary, turning back the clock on some or all of feminism’s advances. “Intactivism” is the application of rights theory to its (unfortunately) logical extreme.