Though considering it is generally cosmetic, any side-effects that occur shouldn't be too terrible barring being operated on by a quack doctor.
Circumcision not only removes many square inches of some of the most sensitive skin on the body, it denudes the glans penis of protection so that sensation becomes dulled. That is a pretty terrible side effect.
Improper circumcision is not infrequent. Some males have lost the entire penis during electric cautery circumcision while many others have been died from severe herpes infection from oral suction during religious circumcision practiced by some Jewish sects. Infections, bleeding, untreated pain are common.
Female circumcision is generally much worse but it's a matter of degree not kind and female circumcision is often illegal and considered barbaric while male circumcision is neither illegal nor considered barbaric.
You should do some research instead of making inaccurate statements.
I never once said improper circumcision was uncommon; I only said in the quote you quoted that side-effects shouldn't be too terrible.
"Oral suction during religious circumcision" constitutes rape if on a child. Even if it is part of a religion and between consenting adults, I do not count that as a side-effect. It is between consenting adults. And culture or not, that is a very weird thing to do to a freshly circumcised person; not to mention the sucker has to be really irresponsible to not even consider being tested after a sexual encounter. Not to mention the recipient would just trust the sucker and not question their sexual health.
Also, I'm only relating to children. I don't count adults as they are old enough to know whether or not they want to have a hard time peeing or having an erection for a couple weeks.
Infections and bleeding and untreated pain are common; I never said they weren't side-effects. On the grander scale of things, they aren't side effects one would not expect to happen since it is surgery. All surgery comes with pain and possible infection.
Dulled sensation of a penis is nothing to me. In fact, that is the most obvious of side-effects; it doesn't bear mentioning. As long as I can still fuck someone and feel myself having an orgasm, it is a minor side-effect unless the person is a body purist. I'm not shaming body purists; I just care whether or not my penis works just fine.
And having been swimming since I was 5, I've honestly seen my fair share of cut dicks in my life in the changing room. And during my slut phase in college, I've also seen a crap ton of cut dicks. Not once have I seen someone with a "lost penis" or suffering from extreme mutilation, so I'm willing to hedge my bets that would be considered a rather uncommon side effect and a result of working with a quack doctor. I'm not saying it doesn't happen; the way you phrased that particular fact makes it sound like it is a common occurrence.
Female circumcision is considered barbaric and illegal because of deep-rooted sexism ideals. In old cultures, a woman's job was to make a family and tend to the house. Circumcision for them was deemed unnecessary and unusual. The laws of the US do consider female circumcision illegal, but you have to wonder whether or not that decision is based on deep-seeded feelings of trying to control a woman's body. I mean, people are fighting against abortion despite the fact the woman is of sound mind to make her own decisions about her own body.
And considering we live in a male-dominated society, it's no surprise male circumcision is legal. With that mindset in our modern culture, why not give more power and choice to men, including whether or not to be circumcised/circumcise a male infant? I'm not saying that ideal is right; I'm against a mainly male-centric society. I'm merely giving potential reasons as to why female circumcision is an illegal offense whereas male circumcision is not.
I never made inaccurate statements; that would require me to make use of extremely definitive terms. That seems to be where the bulk of your counter-argument stems from; from that particular emotion. I only used general terms to describe opinions; I never claimed that circumcision is "definitely" low-risk or that the side-effects "are not" terrible. Respectively, I said "generally low-risk" and "shouldn't be too terrible". Both terms leave room for argument in moments when side-effects are worse than usual or if someone's experience with the procedure didn't go as planned.