If we can ban trans medical procedures, why haven't we banned circumcision?

I think it's probably not a great procedure, but at the same time, I, maybe weirdly, don't give a shit at all, for the most part. I don't really care because it was done to me at such a young age that there's not really any way I could possibly remember it, and so I don't really harbor any residual feelings about it. There's also not really a comparison to be had, here, since I can't really get my foreskin back, so there's not like, an A and B test that you can run on a person to be like "oh yeah does this feel better or does this feel better" type of thing.

You know, on the plus side, my dick looks, like, normal, to me, so that's neat. That would probably be the case if my penis were uncircumcised, too, but the uncircumcised penis looks kinda gross to me on a purely aesthetic level, I don't like the reciprocating skin, looks weird, looks like a pig in a blanket type of thing. Probably a result also of, I think probably a good majority of porn, at least in america, featuring circumcised dicks. Or, a majority of porn I've looked at, anyways.

So overall, I don't really care. I don't know why people kind of would care generally. I think it's probably not a good procedure, certainly, and I think it's kind of weird that we do it and that it's so common, and basically, seems to be pretty much unjustifiable, but I also haven't received a comprehensive or compelling argument against it, other than "the sex is better", which, you know, again, not really any way of A B testing that, for me. On an individual basis, it doesn't matter. It would only really matter, I would think, if you were kind of, hyper-insecure about the fact that you've been circumcised.

Just kind of extrapolating from what I understand, which is obviously not a lot, as I'm sure some sap will enlighten me to, it also doesn't strike me as being a surgery that's probably going to do that much damage. Mostly cosmetic, mostly just a flesh wound.

Still don't think it should be done, probably, but the overwhelming amount of people mad about it kind of indicates to me that there's something else going on about it. I think, probably, this is a pretty common edgy antitheist type of stance to have. The stance itself isn't really edgy, but it is sort of a common stance for edgy antitheists to have, is what I mean. I also use antitheist here instead of atheist, because I consider most atheists to not give a shit about god, while most antitheists I would consider to have a kind of brainrot inflicted by traumatic religious upbringings, or just kind of by ambiently having, predominantly christians (but this can also be applied to islam, or really whatever religion), be shitty to them. Which is fair, since christians are pretty shitty a good amount of the time, perhaps a majority, even.

Certainly though it does give me pause, especially when you get, as I've heard it, enlightened atheist types, that try to kind of argue that religion is the fault of, say, some major wars in history, the crusades, black death, whatever. That seems to me like blaming the wind, or stones. It's a deterministic element that just kind of arose out of humanity's latent need to explain the natural world around them, I would think most materialist (presumably) atheists would be able to understand that, but I think we've maybe become so swamped in this kind of post-history scientific materialist perspective as the default that we've kind of forgotten how weird everything is at face value, and how weird being conscious is. But I could go on that rant for hours, so.