How come the logic we use to justify circumcision doesn't seem to apply to anything else?

You'd make your point if you outlined the logic you think is being used. Otherwise, nobody has anything to refute.

I agree non-consensual circumcision (of either gender) is a bad thing. But parents make all kinds of decisions for their children that most of us would heartily agree with. For instance, the ***VAST*** majority of doctors agree that it is a good idea to vaccinate "the herd" against certain diseases like Mumps and failing to do so can not only cause problems for your little one but also effects the lives of others. When was the last time you heard of an infant consenting to a vaccination?

Here's the thing: There is just a tiny amount of truth to the "boys should be circumcised for the public health" concept because if/when they grow up in unhygienic circumstances, it could help somewhat in preventing the spread of HIV.

Of course, they can just as well be circumcised when they are a bit older and able to meaningfully consent (prior to being able to have sex), but ... gee, they just don't. Because it is painful and risky.

It was painful and risky as an infant, but they didn't have a choice, so it's easy to do - and morally/ethically wrong. It is "the easy way out".

Variations of every reason used to justify male circumcision have been used to justify female circumcision - and it remains a medically unnecessary procedure with some serious risk. That is to say, there have been boys who have been improperly circumcised and ended up having sex changes, inability to climax etc.

No doctor should want to be anywhere near this one: "First, do no harm". Someone saying that they are operating for "the greater good" could just as easily be sterilizing undesirable women or performing experiments on unwilling test subjects to learn things that could help others.

I doubt you'd find any argument we use to justify circumcision that we don't use (more or less) for *any* other thing. I think I've seen somewhat similar arguments/logic for people who refuse modern medical treatments for their children on religious grounds (eg "parents get to decide these things for their children").

I agree that routine infant circumcision (that is, not in response to an actual, specific medical problem) is stupid.

1. There are Latin families that pierce the ears of their baby girls, usually as a physical display of their femininity.

2. Women get breast enhancements or reductions for aesthetic and sometimes for health reasons (large breasts give back problems, reduce some quality of life).

3. We clip our finger and toe nails for sanitary, health and functionary reasons.

4. We cut our hair for sanitary, health, functionary and aesthetic reasons.

5. Some men and baby boys undergo in-patient, locally anesthetized surgeries to correct urological disorders. It can be argued that an uncircumcised penis can present a urological disorder.

6. People get piercings and tattoos all over their bodies all of the time.

7. Surgery of any kind that enhances some quality of life.

And something else that makes this list truly similar to circumcision is that none of them causes any harm to the individual.