I'm sure the comment I replied to was meant as a joke, but it's important to keep in mind that female circumcision does in fact exist. I'm not sure where you got the idea that I consider it to be the same operation when there's really nothing in that article that even suggests it has valid medical applications. In fact the tiny excerpt you quoted is probably the least ghastly description of the practice—the article frankly just gets more and more horrifying the further you read.
The argument here is that male circumcision, while obviously not as invasive and not done for the same despicable reasons, also has no medical value. You might disagree with that (which would be a reasonable position to take, since the American Academy of Pediatrics obviously holds the same opinion), but that doesn't make the comparison invalid.