Minor point....although I agree with you about the nonnecessary need for circumcision, it's not misandry.

Here's why. It's not done out of deep systemic hatred of men, which is a requirement to be justly referred to as 'systemic midsndry'. It's done as a sacrificial dedication, an outward sign of covenant promise with God. It stems from Genesis 15, where God made his second covenant promise with the (at that time) childless Abraham.

If anything, this was a sign of favor (over all the other tribes of man), not a deep seated hatred.

But then.....

Jesus came along and fulfilled (brought to completion) the law of Moses. After his crucifixion, we have new Holy Books and rules. In the New Testament book of Galatians, Paul (the Apostle) writes "Now I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. 3 I testify again to every man who receives circumcision that he is bound to keep the whole law. 4 You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace."

By this he means you have to choose between living by Jewish covenant law in it's entirety or choose the path of Christ. No picking and choosing; and if you have to have a laundry list of rules and laws to obey, then you've sorely missed the point of Christ. He told you what you need to live morally and in alignment with God. You should have paid attention. Remember that in the early days post crucifixion, most converts were of Jewish decent, heritage, culture, and faith. And, Paul was an in your face kind of guy. He didn't mince words that often.

Okay, so here we see that from the days of Paul the Apostle, circumcision has not been a requirement of the Christian religion. Nor is it required by either religious or common/legal law.

Therefore, it's not an institutional or systemic requirement. There is not and never had been a punishment levied by the state for not being circumcised in the US. .

Note that it's not been banned either as a right of religious freedom. Check out this Florida case from 2015 though. Judge ruled in favor of the Dad (this goes against your assertion that the courts always favor women btw) and demanded Mom show up and sign consent for her son to be circumcised. She refused and then spent 9 days in jail for contempt of court. Note that she was threatened with jail indefinitely, which means she would have had her patental rights severed at some point for abandonment had she not caved and signed.

Read the report:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/may/24/florida-woman-son-circumcision-freed-jail
CIRCUMCISION is not an issue of systemic misandry.

But again, I agree with you that it's unnecessary, a violation of bodily autonomy, and should probably fall by the wayside as an antiquated bullshit practice. I apply this to all forms of circumcision.