I'm just going from the one that you listed. In fact, the only one that you listed, which I assume you believed to be the most important, which is why you listed it. You said nothing of HIV and herpes (have you heard of condoms? they prevent these infections too). And IIRC the study on reduced HIV transmission rates was performed on >35 yr old sub Saharan African men, so how does that translate to babies? Also, why do STIs come into play when we are talking about prepubescent children, is HIV a serious problem for toddlers?

There is another post right under my first one with a more fleshed out list of diseases (albeit, still not exhaustive) that circumcision mitigates. I mentioned UTI in the abbreviated post because it is merely quite common, not because it is the most concerning or serious.

You are correct that most of the studies in heterosexual men were conducted in high risk areas of subsaharan Africa. It is relevant to toddlers because it is conducted as a preventative health measure to mitigate future risks, obviously not immediate risk of STIs. There is less risk of complication if the procedure is performed at birth rather than post-puberty when the penis has become larger and more vascularized.

Prove it. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16485592 http://fgm.co.nz/complications-of-fgm http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/topics/fgm/health_consequences_fgm/en/ http://www.jstor.org/stable/3583468

You want it to be okay, which is fine by me, just don't call it equality.

I'm not calling it equality. In my longer post above you can see I do think it is a moral question that needs to be discussed, and I respect those who believe it should be illegal and think that is a valid view to hold. However, because it actually has positive medical indications and with no tangible health risks unlike FGM, it is not as clear cut of an issue. You can make valid arguments for or against male circumcision based on the balance of science and morality, whereas FGM is always stupid/pointless.