Tanya Gold articulates well the existence of contemporary antisemitism (A ban on male circumcision would be antisemitic. How could it not be?, 12 October). But I think she's wrong in describing the Council of Europe as antisemitic for including ritual male circumcision in its examples of violations of children's rights.

I write as a male Jew circumcised at birth in 1958 as part of ritual. I would rather not have been. Yes, male circumcision isn't as extreme a practice as female genital mutilation. However, I know from personal experience that it results in such problems as desensitised sexual feeling, frequent soreness and occasional bleeding. I believe that this irreversible action is at heart an assault on a child, incapable of giving meaningful consent. I attach no blame to my parents' generation, who would have made the decision in the aftermath of the Holocaust, and who would have experienced a society more overtly hostile to them. But I find it depressing that contemporary Jews wish to continue the practice.

And she is quite wrong to say all Jews agree on circumcision. Many secular Jews take pride in where we come from, but also have the confidence to explore an identity appropriate to the world we inhabit. For me, that's an identity that says yes to traditional Jewish elements such as emotional openness, warmth and respect for older people; and no to, for example, physical mutilation, homophobia and misogyny.

The Council used language that was reasonable and balanced, and I would support a legal prohibition to ritual circumcision. If such a move is expressed in language or images that are antisemitic, then we fight them on those grounds. But that's not the case here.

Mike Morten

Worthing, West Sussex

• Whether one is for or against religious circumcision, the issue for those with at least one foot in the modern world is less that of creeping (or otherwise) antisemitism than that of creeping respect for individual human rights. Consent to perform circumcision on an eight-day-old boy derives not from an individual too young to give it, but from the religious doctrine of a community that embraces the act as its covenant with God. But should that be sufficient any more? When does an individual human boy acquire the human right not to have a part of his body removed (for no medical purpose) without his explicit consent? And while we're asking tricky questions, when did Israel's president become the spokesman on this issue for the "Jewish communities across Europe", as Tanya Gold seems happy to let him be?

More difficult to answer than crudely casting those who might wish to do away with religious circumcision as antisemites, but infinitely more interesting.

Simon Block

New Barnet, Hertfordshire

• Tanya Gold, normally so sane, is strangely tolerant of some forms of human rights abuses. To be appalled by ritual male circumcision, or FGM, is not an expression of racism or antisemitism. Circumcision and FGM can differ in degrees of harm inflicted, but qualitatively both represent a socially sanctioned attack on the physical integrity of children. If a group demanded that infants must have a finger removed to comply with its belief structure, every civilised society would rightly outlaw the practice. Why is removal of part of the external genitalia any different? Any community that demands that a child must have part of their body removed, or mutilated, before they can be accepted into the group, must be required to abandon this practice to conform to contemporary standards of human rights. Social cohesion is of crucial importance to us all. But until we can be relied upon to pursue this without cutting our children, we need legislators wise enough to protect them, and brave enough to face the seemingly inevitable accusations of racism.

Dr Helen Burnett

London

• Tanya Gold tries to play a trump card by saying the recent Council of Europe ruling is "antisemitic", in breaching her faith community's right to worship. In fact her argument is already lost. Article 9 of the Human Rights Act 1998 gives each individual the right to "freedom of thought, conscience and religion". Individual is the key word – it means children have a right equal to an adult's right. Children are not the property of any community or their parents. Thankfully parents do not have rights in our society; they have duties and responsibilities. One of those duties is to respect their children's human rights.

Richard Duncker

London

• It seems amazing that any god should deem it essential that part of a baby's body be chopped off in order that (males only) have an everlasting covenant. What century are we living in? Cultural mores are always evolving (we used to condone slavery, the ducking stool for perceived witches, bear-baiting, all sorts of wonderful stuff) but now understand that some things are not worthy of us. While I agree that that female circumcision is hugely more damaging to the individual, and to societies, I am disappointed that any form of mutilation of children is deemed acceptable. While recognising that nothing is likely to change in the near future, lobbies being what they are, I hope we can look forward to a time when individuals can choose their own form of body image to correspond to their own lifestyle/religion/culture, rather than having it irrevocably forced upon them.

Vee Singleton

Framlingham, Suffolk