The fact the procedure doesn't cause any direct medical issues isn't why people get upset. It's the fact it's done without the child's consent. It's a permanent change to a child's body when they're incapable of objecting.

For the record, I'm not against circumcision. It shouldn't be banned or whatever it's just another idiosyncrasy of society. But let's not move the goal posts and pretend peoples objection is 100% medical.

By the by a few of the links you cited don't support your claim. For example the British NHS is against circumcision claiming the advantages dont outweigh the disadvantages.

The AAP isn't pro-circumcision either. They simply changed their stance enough that it is covered by insurance and previous amendments to their statement about circumcision suggest it shouldn't be done routinely but they flip-flop with their more recent reports that change little in their conclusion but preface it with a more "America friendly" pro-circumcision stance. Either way the actual content of the stance is of the opinion if the choice is made there is just about enough medical evidence for ground that it be covered by either Government or private insurance.

But the AAP is widely criticised for being culturally bias in their opinions on circumcision and the flip-flopping between Pro/Anti is more based on appeasing insurance than actually being objective.

This isn't a medical thing. It's a cultural thing that people like the AAP muddy.