Ironic that this thread turned into a circlejerk of manufactured outrage. People list all the supposed "pros" of being uncircumcised, but what are the objective cons of being circumcised? I've only heard the one, that it decreases sensitivity, but that isn't objective and you'd have a helluva hard time proving that using the scientific method.
Cons of being circumcised? How about the risk of death, over 100 babies die every year in the United States due to circumcision. Some babies have contracted HIV or herpes from a mohel during brit milah. Lots of baby boys have other circumcision complications, like accidentally cutting the entire head of the penis off, or cutting too much skin off or cutting it unevenly.
Aside from that, circumcising an infant inflicts trauma and causes brain damage.
There have been multiple cases of people who got circumcised later in life as an adult and later said they regret it, and that it does decrease sensitivity. Of course, not many adults voluntarily go for circumcision, so there's really not enough for a scientific study. Also, from what I've heard, at first when they get circumcised they actually do have higher sensitivity because their glans, which is supposed to be an internal organ, is exposed. But a few years later after it's dried up and keratinized it ends up with much less sensitivity than before.
You also lose the foreskin's gliding action and lubricating functionality.
AFAIK it's not nearly as common and it's never been a cultural thing for the US. Your argument that circumcised individuals should feel "victimized" is what's moronic. People will decide for themselves if they want to play the victim, that's not your choice to make for others.
Female circumcision wasn't outlawed in the US until 1996, and there are still occasionally people that get their baby girls circumcised regardless (obviously in secret, not at a hospital). You may be surprised that some people are using the fact that boy circumcision is legal to argue that female circumcision should be legal too.
There are different methods of female circumcision, most of which are less traumatic than our current most popular form of male circumcision. Some forms of female circumcision are comparable to a pin prick, just enough for a few drops of blood.
But it's not a matter of which one is worse than the other. As far as I'm concerned they're both human rights violations and both of them should be illegal.