One of the divisive issues is circumcision. Some feel is it a huge issue and others feel it shouldn't be mentioned. I think it's a big issue.
Also, paternity fraud and men's health issues. Education bias, male bashing, title IX.
I agree with Dr. Evil. Give up on circumcision, and you undermine your own position that men have a right to their own bodies. My support for a woman's right to her own body is conditional: if pro-choice advocates are unwilling to support a man's right to his own body, specifically, the right to uninterrupted sexual development, then I will support the repeal of Roe vs. Wade and, in particular, the ban on abortion in South Dakota.
If, on the other hand, pro-choice advocates will support the idea that men too have a right to their own bodies, which includes the reproductive right to uninterrupted sexual development, a right that should be applied impartially to all genders, then I will support Roe v. Wade and oppose the move to ban abortion in South Dakota.
There is nothing immoral about conditional support for abortion rights, as the subject is morally unresolvable and must be transferred to the legal and political system for resolution [see Bernard Gert, Common Morality: Deciding What To Do
, Oxford University Press, 2005].
Routine infant circumcision is an unjustified violation of moral rules. At the very least, the controversy surrounding the subject means that routine infant circumcision cannot be a strongly morally justified violation of moral rules. Strongly justified violations of moral rules are permitted, provided a high standard is reached: there must be uniform agreement among equally-informed impartial rational persons to publicly allow the violation. An example of a strongly justified violation of moral rules is the amputation of a limb to save a life. Here there is no controversy.
But the situation with circumcision is different. There is significant disagreement, and so the strongest possible moral argument in favor of routine infant circumcision cannot conclude that it is strongly morally justified: the strongest possible conclusion (ignoring the medical evidence and the testimony of thousands of restoring men) in favor is that routine infant circumcision is a weakly justified violation of moral rules.
Accordingly, persons who circumcise infants or who authorize the procedure are subject to moral judgment (unless they could not possibly have been aware of the controversy surrounding the subject, or of changing medical and ethical opinion).
Men's rights activists who ignore or dismiss the subject of routine infant circumcision are unwittingly undermining their own claim to reproductive autonomy.