I said I couldn't prove it. I can't pick the thoughts out of people's heads and present them to others as material proof. It's a personal assessment based on experience arguing parenting issues and observation of hyperbolic language, which points to an emotional more than logical investment.
Even if I assume that your judgement on the people you've talked to in the past is correct (and as you say, there's no evidence of this) you're unfairly generalising this to all (or at least the majority of) your opponents. The fact that some people support proposition X for the wrong reasons does not mean that all people who support proposition X do so for the wrong reasons, or that proposition X is bad.
I don't get how I have said this.
People in this thread have provided plenty of other reasons that they would not want their child circumsized. You are saying that, actually, no, they are just
lying to cover up their repulsion. I will say it - my reasons for not wanting my children (and indeed myself) circumsized has nothing to do with revulsion. If you want to apply this motive to me, you are accusing me of lying.
Not connecting to an unrelated issue in the sense that you are accusing, just criticising the motivation, where I don't believe I committed any fallacy by pointing out how when logical assessment of a parenting practice could lead to revulsion and result in criticism directed in a more constructive direction but where revulsion takes the lead, can result in criticism that is mislead and damaging.
Criticising the motivation which you've arbitrarily linked to your opponents. I'm not even convinced it actually applies fully in the breastfeeding case (there are a variety of other reasons why mothers sometimes don't or cannot breastfeed their children).
And it's not offensive to be accused of making a decision that is judged morally repugnant? Or to be told that my parents, who raised me quite well, also mutilated me? If others are offended by my perspective on their criticism, then I say it's fair game.
Assessing an act you believe to be correct to not be correct isn't necessarily an attack on your position.
I think that there is not enough medical evidence to justify surgical intervention in the form of circumcision. I presume that you have arrived at the opposite position via a similar costs-benefit analysis, but with the opposite result, and I will take your position at face value and respect that. I will not try to attach some other motivation to you in order to belittle and discredit you, but you appear to be attaching an illogical motivation to me. I may argue about the medical evidence relating to circumcision and whether it's justified, but I won't accuse you of secretly being a prude who oppresses his children.
I won't pretend that there aren't people who make their decision illogically, or people that will accuse you of lying about your motivation, but I don't think that's any reason to lower yourself to their level.