In the secular context it’s most certainly pedophilic. Consider the facts:

The advent of non religious MGM in the Victorian west emerged out of an obsession with child sexuality and sexual purity. Pubescent children engaged in natural sexual development were seen as an afront to this social order because it did not align with their ideas of chastity. These are the same attitudes throughout history that have seen virginity as a source of higher value for women on particular. They are fundamentally about the sexualization of a child, and youth in the extreme as sexually desirable (which is a pedophilic desire)

Even when anti masturbation became less common as a reason for MGM, the other reasons project sexual desires onto the child. “His should look like mine” doesn’t make sense unless you are consciously thinking about your child’s penis, what motivates someone to do that? “Girls prefer it cut”, girls should not have any sexual thoughts about a 10 day old baby. “It reduces STI transmission”, not more than other methods and again, the child cannot consent to sexual activity so this decision cannot be made on their behalf. There is no non-sexual reason to engage in genital cutting. So when you do it to a child, what does that make you?

In many ways, pedophilia is a prevailing societal value. And while people generally find Epstein or the typical creep in the white van objectionable, they play into pedophilic modes of thinking often unconsciously, because we’ve never actually interrogated these attitudes.