Accepting the circumcision = reduced HIV infection argument as a hypothetical; this still doesn't justify springing an important life decision on someone (10-12 year old) who clearly isn't intellectually/emotionally equipped to make that choice; especially not when there's a far less complicated alternative that not only doesn't require surgery with permanent consequences, but has a much higher HIV prevention rate (100%, even) than circumcision supposedly does: namely, teaching them to wear a condom.
It deserves to be repeated often: the whole HIV angle is a red herring. The vast majority of circumcisions that are performed in the West for non-religious reasons were because doctors told parents that it was more hygienic. That's what my parents were told when I was born (1988) and that's why I was circumcised. It had nothing to do with HIV. The hygiene angle only came after people in English speaking countries stopped being sexual prudes (well, compared to those nutty Victorians) and masturbation was no longer seen as a grave health and
moral issue. During the 19th century and even up to the 1950s, circumcision was recommended as a preventive measure against masturbation
explicitly. Indeed, this implicitely admits that male circumcision affects the sensual properties of the penis, at the very least for masturbation. If Jewish people want to keep circumcising their sons to appease their barbaric Cannanite god, well so be it. I suppose it is minor compared to the the abuse they are doing by indoctrinating their children into their religion. But please, secularists, stop buying into this nonsense. And if you did, know that many well intentioned people were also duped into it by unscrupulous medical professionals, but please stop supporting it.