"
 Hi thanks for taking the time to respond Avi.  I had presumed you were Muslim because it said on your talkpage that you had contributed to the Abbey Hill Mosque article.  From your response I now gather you are of the Jewish faith so sorry if I have misrepresented you at any point. Have I got that right, you are Jewish, not Muslim? I also presumed you were from the UK (which is where I am from) because you had contributed to an article on a UK mosque.  Is that right?
When I said most people are against it I meant that most people where I am from don't know much about it and if they did find out about the negative aspects of it (such as the complications (serious and minor), loss in sexual function, etc) then they would most likely take a somewhat negative view of it. I would apply this to all non-circumcising cultures.  These people may not campaign against it or join the genital integrity movement (if you could describe it as such), however they would in general have a negative view of it.  There are a few reasons as to why I think they'd view it somewhat negatively once you forced them to give their view on it. 
It is done on children without their consent.  Most people would view this as ethically wrong - to not have any say in a major alteration to a part of your body (a particularly sensitive part at that).  
It can cause pain (people generally don't like to see children in pain).  
They then might ask if there was a reason for it to be done.  They would look at the views of the medical associations (via their policy statements on RIC) and find out that it isn't a net positive operation, therefore it doesn't need to be done for health reasons.  Furthermore, those that are not circumcised would realise it is a needless operation because they had done fine being intact.
 What I am saying is that most people do view it negatively (if they know about it and are forced to choose), they just don't bother saying anything because they do not wish to cause upset to a religious community or be accused of being intolerant.  
 I am not sure what bizarre forced circumcision you are referring to.
 Regarding the term/title of the article, I don't see how calling the article Male circumcision would equate it with female circumcision.  I realise they are different operations, but they still involve cutting of the genitals.  You also cannot deny that a lot of people refer to FGM (as you would call it) as female circumcision.  Furthermore, a lot of people, when asked to define ""circumcision"" would ask the question, ""which type? Male or female?"" In the last post on this subject, at talk:circumcision, I said this and I don't think you or Jake responded.  I took that as meaning you didn't have a counter-argument to what I said.  My point there was that we should be as specific as possible and that being accurate is more important than using the most widely used term.  This is following the Wikipedia naming guidelines.    "