It is quite possible to develop a variety of conditions that require circumcision later in life (it happened to my dad and also to Al Bundy) and there are less severe complications like infection that are more likely with a foreskin.

I think it could be argued that male circumcision is a matter of preference and tradition more than it is of public health, but there are still health reasons for it that exist in addition to religious tradition, aesthetic preference, etc.

This is not true of "female circumcision," which is essentially mutilating someone and warping their sexual identity FOR LIFE and for completely unnecessary reasons. I do understand that there are some differences in sensitivity for men as well, but for them to be commensurate the entire head of the penis would have to be cut off, really. There is NO COMPARISON between the two practices, sorry.