The message was obvious by everyone reading this post.

The message is obvious by anyone willing to read between the lines. Circumcision is singled out not for risk, or harm, or agency. Far more risky and harmful things are done to children with no agency with no qualm nor opposition. And certainly not with the fervor of the anti-circumcision crowd.

There is nothing to read between the lines bere. Circumcision is "singled out" because that's the only one that realistically might happen to a child born in the west.

If I were to have a child, circumcision would definitely need to be discussed with my partner. Because there are plenty of reasons people decide to opt-in for that procedure, none of which have any intentionally malicious components to it.

FGM wouldn't need to be discussed, because not only I assume nobody here would be insane enough to even propose it, it is just downright evil, carries zero non-malicious purpose, and is illegal to perform here. I see zero reason to worry about something that cannot even be legally performed in the first place.

  > I see zero reason to worry about something that cannot even be legally performed
  > in the first place.

That line of thinking bolsters my previous comment that the "if its a boy" clause was not unnecessary, and conveys specific intent.

Serious question, do you have issues with english reading comprehension?

"If it is a boy" was a necessary clause. Because "if it was a girl", then they won't need to worry abour circumcision. Which is why mentioning the first clause made perfect sense. No need for some conspiracy theories here.