Circumcision is grievous bodily harm, German judges rule

[COLGATE4]

170. One person's "harmless" is anothers' "drastic".

You may be right in that public perception is fluid and moving in the direction that will dissuade circumcision. But that's a matter for the public through their elected representatives and later through the courts to ensure that whatever decision is made passes constitutional muster.

Toplessness, if there is such a word is one such evolving trend. There are clothing optional beaches in the US now, as well as strictly nudist areas. I imagine that in another 50 years or so toplessness will be a non-issue. But my greater point is that when something is a permitted religious practice it can only (and should only) be circumscribed legally with the greatest of care and even then only reluctantly. BTW, I don't think you enhance your argument by using emotionally charged phrases like 'genital mutilation' to describe circumcision.