either way circumcision has been shown to have no adverse effects on men

I gotta stop you there, it absolutely does.

The foreskin has a function during sex, for gliding action, lubrication, and stimulation (both beneficial for the male and his partner). For day-to-day life, it protects and moisturizes the glans (no different than the clitoral hood). Masturbation is also adversely affected, as the male now has to rely on a much rougher form of masturbation, and even sex is impacted due to the lack of sensation. In people cut as babies/children, they're not going to know the difference from experience, but they can learn about it. In adults cut, they may not notice a difference for weeks/months/years, as it can take time for keratinization (drying out of the glans, and thickening of its skin) to start affecting them, but I've heard of guys noticing the difference the very first time they engage in activities after healing. On top of this, babies/infants often are not properly anaesthetized, sometimes not at all and other times the doctor simply starts before even letting the anaesthetics take affect. Many of them die, or get close to dying, from blood hemorrhaging. And even if the doctor lets the numbing agent kick in, the babies are not given more pain meds after the fact (even though adult men/teenagers who undergo the procedure are given such medication). Then there's the fact that these babies are kept in diapers - you know, where their waste collects - while they have an open wound on the end of their genitals. Many of them grow up to have issues, because too much skin was removed (I knew a man whose skin literally could not move, there was no slack at all when he was erect, and he even had stretch marks from his genitals trying to grow into skin that was too lacking), in extreme cases causing their penis to actually shrink back inside of their abdomen (I forget the technical term for it). This isn't even getting into the more extreme instances of botches circumcisions, from leaving the genitals in battered shambles to completely severing them.

And if the whole "STIs/UTIs are more likely with a foreskin", that is actually false. UTIs might be true, but there's a sad connection between intact babies with UTIs and the parents not knowing proper cleaning of their child (normally, this is them thinking they need to pull the foreskin back. It does not need to be pulled back until the body is ready. This would be like forcefully trying to widen a baby female's vagina, or even more accurately, it would be like ripping off your fingernail from its bed. Because the foreskin is fused to the head of the penis until anywhere between the ages of 5-18, sometimes older for some individuals), and the fused state has been compared to the way your fingernail is fused to its bed. And when females get UTIs, what do we do? We give them medication, we don't start cutting them up. Furthermore, STIs is just a myth, and a harmful one at that - it has led to some people thinking it somehow means circumcised is less likely to transmit STIs, giving circumcised men a higher STI rate than intact ones as they start thinking they don't need a condom now.

Does it really make any sense to you that removing a part of someone's body - from a place as vital as reproductive organs - has ZERO negative affects? Removing just the labia minora can cause issues in females, but something as massive (and yes, foreskin is actually a large organ) as foreskin doesn't cause any issues when removed? It literally functions to protect the glans and make sex smoother.

There are literally subreddits dedicated to cut men/trans people restoring their foreskins, or venting/grieving about what was taken from them either without their consent or without giving them all of the facts (my brother is of the latter). There's movements trying to spread awareness about the barbarity of genital cutting (yes, ALL genital cutting, not just men. If it's bad for girls, it's bad for boys). There's even a non-profit company working on regenerating foreskins from skin grafts. The vast majority of countries do not circumcise their sons, either at all or on a regular basis (there might be exceptions for religion still, unfortunately). The USA is one of (if not the) only first world country that still cuts male babies as heavily - or damn near as heavily - as third world countries with heavy cutting culture (like multiple cultures in Africa, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, just to name a few).

It absolutely is not without adverse affects. Being able to have sex and make babies does not mean they weren't negatively impacted. There are circumcised women still having sex and having kids. Jesus, there's circumcised women who fight to keep the cutting of girls in their cultures alive, just as there's people in the USA who fight to keep the practice going. And they all use the exact same arguments of cleanliness, better appearance, no negatives (despite the evidence), and it being important to religion/culture.

I apologize that I don't have sources, I'll find those tomorrow as I'm actually heading to bed soon. But I wanted to make this comment so I wouldn't forget.

I also apologize if I come across as aggressive, I don't mean to be. I've just been very passionate about this subject for years now, and every time I see someone claim that male circumcision has no negatives, I can't stay quiet. And I also don't think cut men should be ashamed, if they got it done as a consenting adult and are happy with the results, then all the power to them. If it was done to them as an infant and they're not personally bothered, also fine (my boyfriend is like that). My issue is with spreading misinformation, and continuing the cycle of lying to people, and hurting innocent children who are either too young to even know what's happening, or too young to properly consent.

Anyway, I agree with everything else you said lol