Sure, but if you make extraordinary claims, then you have to provide extraordinary evidence. A claim of "amputation is no severe than drawing blood" is an excessively extraordinary claim, and you have yet to provide any evidence.
> I think we agree. As I said, it should be easy to talk about and yet there are multiple factors one must weigh. This makes it compicated, but I'm happy we're talking about it.
What factors? There's only one I am aware of - superstition.
> So I would be fascinated to understand the opposite position, which you put forth, that circumcised men get less joy from sex.
This isn't actually under contention, unless you contend that less feeling during sex is better.
Besides, for at least 3 decades there's been a ton of papers correlating ED with circumcision.
The only people "just asking the question" are those who are not happy with the answers we already have. We already have the answers, we already have the research, it's a very widely researched thing due to the large number of amputations performed.
You may not like the answers, but they're out there, and they've been validated.
Now ...
You are proposing it as a fairly harmless procedure, you should be providing evidence that there is no harm. It is both unscientific and primitive to make claims and ask others to disprove them.
The fact that you are ignoring much of the evidence that is already well-known and then you go on to compare lifelong mutilation for a superstitious belief to a temporary pain with no negative permanent effect makes it seem that you are willfully deluding yourself.
Circumcised men get less joy from sex. The only credible reports we have from consenting adults are those who get circumcised as adults, and the large majority did indeed get less joy from sex. A significant minority suffer from ED. A small minority never have sex again.