FWIW, I was circumcised. I have no problem referring to the procedure as "mutilation" and "barbaric", and I also don't feel as though I am "mutilated" or "barbaric" for having been circumcised, nor do I feel that others view me, or others like me, as such when they refer to the procedure using said language.

If you don't feel mutilated, then why do you think the procedure is mutilation?

OP was suggesting that calling it "mutilation" is making fun of the circumcised individual in a derogatory manner. To my point, I am perfectly comfortable referring to my having been circumcised as a "mutilation" without my feeling "mutilated" in a derogatory sense. I don't mind others referring to the process as mutilation because it doesn't make me feel "mutilated" or "barbaric" when they do so.

> Just think of the person that you are calling mutilated.

I'm thinking of myself. I was medically mutilated as an infant. The circumcision was wholly unnecessary. It's why I chose to NOT have my son circumcised.

Well that's just poor reading comprehension, the procedure is barbaric but that doesn't automatically apply to the baby.

No.

Thank you for having empathy.

The barbarian is the perpetrator, not the victim.