Purity spirals start this way. Comparing infant male circumcision with childhood gender transitions is so retarded because the effects of the later so far exceed the effects of the former we aren't even in the same solar system when it comes to the magnitude of the future consequences.

People can rightly hold logical viewpoints on things while also holding other seemingly contradictory opinions, is it hypocritical. Perhaps. But in their own mind that isn't necessarily the case. We shouldn't allow the kind of all encompassing ideological basis to dictate a kind of orthodoxy in activist circles, issue atomicity is important if anything is to be achieved. The arguments towards ideological hypocrisy and contradictory viewpoints towards other issues needs to remain in the realm of philosophy.

Infant male circumcision is at it's root something that is completely dictated by cultural and religious norms. Anyone whom is from a culture that does not practice it will find it to be barbaric and strange. Anyone who is from a culture that does will find the practice to be normal to the point they don't question it. Walsh in this case being an American Catholic is of the latter persuasion most likely. And frankly won't see the parallels made as anything more than an attempt to sideline the argument. Indeed because the effects of infant male circumcision are so miniscule to be irrelevant in most cases barring the issues with botched circumcisions.

There's certainly an argument to be made against the practice, and I'm pretty firmly in the against camp here, but that's an argument for another place and time because it's frankly far less important an issue than just about everything else.