This isn’t an issue of health as much but consent or bodily autonomy. A newborn cannot consent to such a procedure and stripping him of this choice for life, or subjecting him to a small possibility of a surgical complication risk is abhorrent — it’s not like a parent cutting an infant’s nails or hair: those grow back and have no sensation in them. What these “scientific” studies fail to focus much on — and you have conveniently left out as well is if there is any loss of sensitivity because of circumcision. Trust me, it’s a fully functioning organ and regardless of sensitivity-loss, the functioning of the organ itself changes.
Considering over two-thirds of males around the world are uncircumcised with perhaps only a minority running into rare issues like phimosis, and other things you have mentioned, I don’t see a strong case for circumcision. Someday you may get a fungal infection in your toenails so why not have those plucked out? Or amputate your arms because you have to clean your pits? I find all arguments related to “hygiene”, “human body is redundant,” “you don’t need your foreskin (toenail example)” and even cosmetic appearance (an erect member looks pretty much the same — cut or uncut) very absurd.
Maybe there is no comparison of male circumcision to FGM but the vast ignorance on the subject even among the medical community is scary. Maybe this form of fascist insanity is best reserved for the US where this practice is accepted as the default and practiced recklessly — the rest of the world is running just fine.