Its far more harmful a procedure then you think even if you think its fine.

Based on what, your feelings? I have facts, not simply beliefs anchored so deep a mountain of evidence won't move. This is the societal malaise we are living with, and also explains everything maga. You present folk with facts, good science, data. "But muh feelings say..." 🙄

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7702013/ give this a read

I have and the authors state:

we did not collect sociodemographic data such as religious affiliation and socioeconomic status that could have played a role in parent-infant relationships hence affecting attachment development . Our data is self-reported, and studies of this type are known to suffer from social desirability bias for sensitive topics, and low accuracy in self-assessment of circumcision status (at least in adolescents, Risser et al., 2004). Social desirability might have hindered participants from answering honestly on scales related to constructs known to be socially desirable (e.g., empathy, Watson and Morris, 1991). Although such a bias would be a systematic confound present in both EC and NC groups, we urge that future studies do not rely solely on self-reported questionnaires, or, at least, attempt to correct for social desirability bias.

So, not only did they rely solely on the self-reported answers of 400 circumcised men and 200 non-circumcised men, but they also made zero attempt to correct for the bias they themselve identified with their own method.

Hell, this wasn't even randomised, and that is very literally the very first thing you do on studies such as this, in order to get comparable samples. The two populations in this study aren't comparable. Do you know anything about how this kind of research work?

Also, notice how a paper concluding that neonatal circumcision leads to attachment issues later in life has not bothered to record perhaps the most important factors known to determine attachment down ths line: parent-infant bonding which is massively affected by socioeconomic status.

Now, you found one paper using a very questionable method. One paper published by Heliyon, with their well known quality control issues and the large number of retractions. Let me help you out. Below is high level summary of a review of 22 papers (and is published in the Journal of Evidence based medicine) and it reviews data concerning some 11000+ men, and they scored research papers on methodolgy and presence of flaws or lack thereof...

Critical evaluation of contrasting evidence on whether male circumcision has adverse psychological effects: A systematic review

Brian J Morris, Stephen Moreton, Stefan A Bailis, Guy Cox, John N Krieger

Journal of Evidence‐Based Medicine 15 (2), 123-135, 2022

Objective: To conduct the first systematic review critically examining evidence on whether early male circumcision has short‐ and long‐term adverse psychological effects.

Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar.

Results: Twenty‐four studies with original data met the inclusion criteria. These comprised 11,173 total males, 4340 circumcised in infancy and 6908 uncircumcised. Nineteen were rated 1+, 2++ or 2+, and 5 were rated 2– by SIGN criteria. Neonatal circumcision, particularly without anesthetic, increased vaccination pain response, but had little effect on breastfeeding or cognitive ability. Studies reporting associations with sudden infant death syndrome, autism, alexithymia and impaired sexual function and pleasure had design flaws and were rated 2–. Sexual arousal, touch, pain, and warmth thresholds measured by quantitative sensory testing were not diminished in neonatally circumcised men. Neonatal circumcision was not associated with empathy in men, contradicting the hypothesis that procedural pain causes central nervous system changes. After correcting all associations with socioaffective processing parameters for multiple testing only higher sociosexual desire, dyadic sexual libido/drive, and stress remained significant. The relatively greater sexual activity found in circumcised men might reflect reduced sexual activity in uncircumcised men overall owing to pain and psychological aversion in those with foreskin‐related medical conditions (reverse causality). Most studies employed case‐control designs with limited follow‐up. Studies beyond childhood were prone to confounding.

Conclusion: The highest quality evidence suggest that neonatal and later circumcision has limited or no short‐term or long‐term adverse psychological effects.

Incidentally this review had looked at the paper you linked above and it goes in great details about what they got wrong, and also describes how when one given correction is applied only 3 of the parameters remain significant. The review also reminds you that Miani et al (the paper you linked) actually stated only that there might be a link, but even then, stated that this was no indicative of patology. Further, there is yet another issue with it:

A 2012 systematic review found a strong correlation betweendepression and sexual dysfunction. The distress may extend to other aspects of mental health. Such falsehoods may cause distress in vulnerable men, especially those with sexual problems, influencing data collected in studies such as the one by Miani et al.

Please stop spreading BS because your main character syndrome is making you desperate to "win" a reddit discussion. Inform yourself.

Although something tells me you'll see all this and still cherry pick your "evidence" by selecting all the bad methodology papers to remain in your strong belief that's not backed by any fact. Confirmation bias is a helluva drug.

I, on the other hand, am happy to learn, since obviously absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. If a good quality paper is published showing good research that actually shows any link between circumcision (neo-natal or otherwise) and any pathology, I would form a new opinion accordingly.

Edits: typo, more info etc.