Anti-Circumcision rhetoric can be found all over the political spectrum, but I shall in the secular part of this post mainly be thinking of Left Wing opposition to the practice since I am Left Wing and consider Conservatives and "Libertarians" people who's opinions on such matters shouldn't be taken seriously in the first place.
The first problem to complicate the perception of Circumcision is how Female Genital Mutilation is often incorrectly called Female Circumcision. FGM is both in terms of what it does and why it's done not in anyway similar to Circumcision, it should be called Female Castration because that is far more parrel to what's actually being done.
There is I suspect a direct connection to that barbaric practice being wrongly equated with Circumcision and the way many people decided to start describing Circumcision as "cutting part of your dick off". The Forsaken is part of the dick in the same way hair is part of your head or fingernails part of your hand. But the best comparison is actually the ambilocal cord, both serve a function while in the Womb but are obsolete as soon as the infant is born.
It angers me to see so many of the same people chanting "Believe the Science" when the Science seems to be contradicting something religious people believe in, will then ignore the endless scientific studies that have proven the health benefits of Infant Circumcision. There are many health benefits to Circumcision in general but what's most directly relevant to Infant Circumcision is Urinary Tract Infection, Uncircumcised AMAB children have a significantly increased risk of developing UTI before they even turn 2 years old. It is absurdly hypocritical how some of the same people who support mandatory vaccinations of children even when the parents are uncomfortable with it to also then turn around and try to ban allowing parents to circumcise their children.
The Science has shown that the benefits of Circumcision far outweigh the hypothetical risks. In addition to the UTI issues it also reduces risk of STDs and HPV and cervical cancer Now I've seen people seek to respond to all these health arguments with a weird little slogan of "wash your dick", thinking it's that simple is clear evidence of having the privilege of being Cut your whole life.
Science has also debunked the notion that Circumcision effects male sexual enjoyment one way or the other.
The only Anti-Circumcision claim that has any statistical validity at all is the claim that it has a negative psychological effect and even that is inconclusive. But the thing is even if that is true that is Socially Constructed. We live in a society that conditions people of every gender but especially Cis-Males to place much of their self worth in their sex organs, and then idiots start telling Circumcised people that they had part of their dick cut off when they were a baby. Putting all that value on a piece of vestigial skin because it can technically be considered "part of the dick" is pure Toxic Masculinity.
There is also an obvious overlap between anti-Infant Circumcision arguments and the arguments of TERFs and other Transphobes, this idea that anything related to the natural state of a child's reproductive system is sacrosanct and shouldn't be allowed to be altered until they are unambiguously an adult. Puberty Blockers weren't even originally created for Trans People but for the rare condition of young girls starting puberty way too early. The foreskin being technically "natural" doesn't make it not harmful.
But the real bigotry behind Anti-Circumcision rhetoric is Anti-Semitism. It fascinates me how many things are considered Anti-Semitic dog whistles online simply for being something also believed by some past Anti-Semites. But all this demonizing of a ritual custom that has been foundational to Jewish cultural identity since the first book of The Bible is apparently fine. But it's not just the Jews, it's also part of the cultures of a number of indigenous peoples of the Americas and Australia and other places.
I still remember the first Anti-Circumcision webpage I ever stumbled upon. I was reading it genuinely sympathetic to the author's concerns, but then they just casually inserted an unsourced claim that "Rabbis lick the blood off the circumcised Baby's penis" and my jaw just dropped, that's literally an allusion to the Blood Libel and they just dropped it in there and moved on like it was nothing.
But if you really want to see just how insanely conspiratorial Anti-Circumcision people can get, watch this video on the Silent Hill Wiki.
That's the secular arguments, now I shall get to specifically Christian attitudes towards Circumcision.
Everything Paul says that sounds Anti-Circumcision is in the context of his opposing those who want to make it mandatory for Adult Gentile Converts. But those I call Reverse-Legalists abuse these passages to claim Circumcision and other Jewish Customs are outright sinful for Christians to engage in.
Paul also talks about how the true Circumcision is spiritual, but he does the same with Baptism often in the same passages and no one argues that the physical Water Baptism ritual is abolished by those verses [correction there are sects like The Quakers that do basically argue that, but they're outliers].
In Acts 16 Paul helps Timothy get Circumcised, so he was clearly not entirely agaisnt doing it even for adult gentile converts.
First Century Christians were still a sect of Judaism, and Jewish Paulian Christians like the Nazarenes continued practicing it at least into the late Fourth Century.
