It's very unfortunate that the bizarre ritual of male circumcision has become so significant for Muslims and for Jews. I can't see that banning it by law could be viable. The consequences of attempts to do that could be very damaging. There is a strong case for some kind of legal power to avoid the disasters that can arise from botched procedures.

I would hope that in time the numbers and influence of people in both traditions who oppose it will increase, and that in time it will die away. But not for a very long time.

One thing that might serve to undermine it is the fact that the idea that in order to be a full member of the community a Muslim or Jewish boy needs to be circumcised immediately would seem to mark out girls as something less than full members.

However while that is an argument for abandoning the rituals, I would also suspect that this might even be one factor behind the practice of "female circumcision", as a way of providing an equivalent ritual of membership.

It is very fortunate that the corresponding Christian ritual, baptism, as well as not involving muitilation, is equally available to both sexes.

It occurs to me that resistance to the idea that "male circumcision" should be ranked as a variety of genital mutilation alongside "female circumcision" has two sources. there are those who see this as a way of implying that somehow the female procedure is not such a terrible thing, and those who see it as the reverse, implying that make circumcision is necessarily as terrible. In truth it should imply neither of those two things.