I'm well aware of the difference thanks, and I suggest you read this opinion piece again since it also deploys the argument from tradition and is written by, as the author notes in the piece, an orthodox jew: do you think he might be biased at all?
Yes, he is a man who has been circumcised and sees no problem with it.
The important thing is this bit.
"As a father and an Orthodox Jew, if there was significant evidence of harm, I would not subject my child to the practice. I would also expect religious authorities to restrict male circumcision before such a ban was needed. But on the current evidence, a ban is unnecessary."
And this bit
"Banning male circumcision would have an enormous effect on religious practice. In Judaism, circumcision is one of the most basic requirements of the religion, although it should be noted that Jewish law prohibits circumcision if it would be unsafe for the child.
That said, just because a custom is old and religiously significant should not make it immune to the law. "
For Jews to stop performing circumcisions you need to clearly show it is unsafe for it to be performed.
Doctors and the medical authorities and the WHO seem to disagree with the view that it is harmful.
So you need to convince doctors and professionals that it is.
If you can't , then that's because it's not.
