The 2nd link isn't really research, it's the opinion of a psychologist. The 3rd one is specifically about circumcisions with no anesthetic, which (as far as I know) is not how it works in a hospital. Again, my opinion is specifically about circumcisions done in a hospital by doctors. I think we both agreed before I opened any of these that non-doctors should not under any circumstances do a procedure like this.

The first one, the NIH link, is much more compelling, and has changed my mind. Specifically from the results:

Specifically, between-subjects effects analysis indicated that EC [early circumcised] participants reported higher levels of avoidance and anxiety compared to the NC [non-circumcised] sample. [...] A multivariate effect on sexual libido was found (F2,519 = 5.82, p = .003, η2p = .022), with EC men scoring higher in solitary and dyadic dimensions. Lastly, compared to NC, EC men reported higher levels of both stress (F1,521 = 10.76, p = .001, η2p = .020), and sensation seeking (F1,550 = 4.08, p = .043, η2p = .007).

If I'm reading that correctly, there's statistically significant correlation between anxiety + self-isolating behavior & circumcision.

Their proposed method as to how those things are linked is the following:

This is in accordance with life-history theory, which stipulates that early-life stress reduces reliance on one's social environment (e.g., opportunistic-exploitative interpersonal orientation), increasing stress, heightening sexuality, and increasing short-term mating and externalizing behaviors.

some studies have found that post-circumcision mother-infant bonding is disrupted, marked by altered breastfeeding and sleep patterns as well as higher infant irritability [...] Also, early attachment security at 12 months has been found to predict the experience and expression of emotions at elementary school, at adolescence, and in the mid-twenties

So as far as I understand, their argument is that post-op infant, after coming off the anesthetic at the hospital (hopefully), is still in some pain for a while. Pain means more crying, irritability, etc until it's fully healed. This disrupts the parents, which then stresses the baby out. That snowballs into elementary school and beyond.

That's not nearly as extreme as you were describing, but it still counts as a potential source of trauma.

EDIT: Lol, this is why I prefer actual research to a blog post. The second link starts like this:

The new CDC guidelines highlight methodologically flawed studies from Africa that have no relevance to the United States. They chose to ignore studies that were conducted in the United States

Then cites a study:

The most comprehensive study available that assesses the psychological impact of circumcision on children after infancy was conducted by Ramos and Boyle (2000) and involved 1072 pre-adolescent and adolescent boys who were circumcised in a hospital setting

So, I looked for that study. There's a good reason why she didn't cite the actual name of the study, considering how she started her argument:

Ritual and Medical Circumcision among Filipino Boys

Reading what the "medical circumcision" consists of in the paper itself, yeah, no shit it causes PTSD. It's at 7-14 years old, en masse, with a bunch of scared boys crammed into a room able to hear everything going on in the operating room next door.

117 ÷ 1,300,000 * 100 = 0.009% of babies undergoing the procedure die, according to that source. Of course, that doesn't include other complications and potential trauma from the baby experiencing post-op pain and thus disrupting the mother-child bond, which I wasn't fully aware of. I've linked some of the studies in my original comment.

Ah, a meta-analysis! Excellent, studies of studies are almost always the best way for researchers to summarize findings, thanks a lot.

The conclusions very much match what I was trying to say: done in a sterile environment by doctors in hospitals with anesthetic, it's a very safe procedure. Done by rabbis/imams in the synagogue/mosque, this is insanely dangerous. If I had my way, I'd ban religious figures from performing circumcisions. If you want to get it done, go to a hospital.

As an elective surgery, the benefits are so close to zero as to be non-existent. From the meta-analysis:

while male circumcision may be useful in protecting against the incidence of male urinary tract infections, 12 bacterial colonization is still present after circumcision, so genital hygiene is regarded as more effective in preventing UTIs rather than circumcision surgeries. 13 In certain instances where hygiene is poor, circumcision may be implemented to prevent urinary tract infections.

I certainly wouldn't advocate for anyone that I know getting this procedure as it seems like a small risk for zero benefit (again, when done by doctors), but neither is it mutilation.