I think you completely misunderstood what I was trying to say: You were basically comparing processed foods and concrete, glass, etc to not being natural, but they came from natural resources and are able to effectively "adapt" to our needs
Literally everything comes from natural resources, unless they're imported from off-world, this point means absolutely nothing. On a fundamental level, everything is just natural elements, but if you used this as a serious debating point, everyone will laugh at you. I'm saying the average western lifestyle is in no way relatable to what human nature is, and that to argue that genital mutilation isn't in our human nature is completely irrelevant to the purpose.
There are many things in our lives more farther removed from what you ideally hold human nature to be that are way more innocent than circumcision, even though by your logic, they aren't good because they're so far removed from human nature. Your point here makes no sense.
but you were born with a richard/vagina and it serves a purpose other than pleasure
We're also born with tonsils and appendixes that until fairly recently in medical history were considered useless organs that could be removed inconsequentially, and the verdict on both were reached not because the removal of said organs wasn't natural, but because it wasn't necessary and sometimes harmful. We're not going to prevent circumcision from being performed by arguing that it isn't natural, and trying to preach this point is going to actively discredit any serious debate on genital mutilation.
Poll