Male circumcision has very little to do with religion in many cases and has just recently become more of a matter of choice medically speaking at least here in the US. For years doctors performed male circumcision as standard procedure when one had a boy. The only time it was not routinely performed was at the special request of the parents. There is still some information out there that claims there are health benefits. That is neither here nor there but to make a statement that the minute potential decrease in pleasure that a male may experience as a result of having been circumcised in no way compares to the complete loss of the external female sex organs that are barbarically removed often later in a young girl's life using rudimentary tools. As a woman, to have someone even make a claim that a normal sex life for a circumcised man is not possible in the context of a discussion about FGM is insulting. There are millions of sexually satisfied circumcised males in the world and not one victim of FGM that is.
My issue with the statement has nothing to do with religion or the lack of choice, it has to do with context. Comments on the morality of making irreversible choices for infants is one thing but please make your "decrease in pleasure" claim on a different thread.