So the idea is that not consented mutilation is defensible as long as the consequences after a few days or weeks are extremely minor? Just repeating this back to you so we're on the same page.
I'd say that attempting to prohibit this tradition has a net negative impact on the integrity and functioning of society because the harm in question is very minor but the reaction to such an attempt will be major. I'm sure you are trying to twist this into "but then I could anesthetize and then circumcise you", however, in that case I'd retaliate so drastically that it would negatively impact the functioning of society much more than say 100 circumcisions, hypothetically speaking.
I’m not trying to twist this into anything, I literally only repeated your own words back to you. So now this isn’t about whether the consequences are minor, but whether the person being harmed has the power to retaliate and how such retaliation impacts society? I’m having a really hard time following your rationale, and if I can be perfectly honest the impression I get is that you first decided that genital mutilations in infants is fine and are now retroactively looking for justifications.
Power is one factor informing policy, empathy is another. Neither is sufficient for a policy that sustains the system for long on its own. Only focusing on power would result in e.g. exploitation of Africa. But most don't like this due to empathy.
Focusing only on empathy often misses the point too as it tends to get politicized, overinflating minor issues as in this case, which will ultimately result in power conflicts, degrading long-term sustenance.
