circumcision

But this is an irreversible process that contradicts dietary and educational habits.

Not true. Everything is irreversible. For example, education takes him to a place that also influences the decision whether to change direction.

While education can be said to be reversible, nutrition is definitely not reversible.

Not circumcising a child at 8 days old is also an irreversible decision. No one can bring back to this child the childhood days when he was outside the circumcision.

Why is this the only issue that the rabbi evades on the merits of the matter? The answers are weak and not serious. A bit reminiscent of contemporary ultra-Orthodox apologetics.

A, indeed. But note that he wrote “even if theoretically correct” and only then said that there is no other option and everything is irreversible, etc. But the real answer is that the mitzvah of circumcision outweighs the value of the autonomy of the mindless baby.

I think the answer is actually strong and correct and not evasive.

Continuing on this topic, I thought I would add that there is a dilemma here between the value of a person's autonomy over their children and the extent of the harm to the child. If it were a very serious harm (such as amputation of a leg or arm), there would be a case for using force to prevent this practice by someone who does not believe in it (like forcing a person not to commit suicide even though they have autonomy over their own body). But in the case of circumcision, the harm is relatively small and it seems that the value of the parents' autonomy outweighs it (like not forcing a person to refrain from smoking even though they are harming themselves). So even someone who does not believe in the importance of circumcision should not prevent it from being performed by someone who does believe in it. At most, people can be educated peacefully against so-called "barbaric" customs.