James McDonald writes in Haaretz that "In a society where most men are circumcised, e.g., the U.S., it's hard to imagine the European attitude that circumcised men are trauma victims."
"There is an obvious reason why circumcision is a hot topic in Europe and not other Western societies like North America or Israel " -- Except that it is, indeed, a hot topic in the United States. Thousands of men harmed by this "well-known norm" are routinely dismissed by the medical establishment, and yet the growing voices opposing circumcision (read about intactivism in the United States) are having an effect, and circumcision rates are steadily decreasing.
"It is not uncommon to dismiss an unknown and alien practice as dangerous or cruel" -- it also happens that is is not uncommon to dismiss the victims, when one is willfully blind to the nature of the abusive practice.
The American Academy of Pediatrics asserts that "the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks." -- The AAP also asserts that "the real incidence of complications is unknown", so how did they do the math?
"I can emphatically state that I have never felt trauma, shame or low self-esteem" -- You haven't, many others have. When a procedure is repeated upon millions, a small percentage of damage is multiplied by millions, causing thousands of deeply harmed.
"it is impossible to arrive at a non-objective conclusion" -- not really. Ethically, it's not permissible to cut off part of another person's penis without permission. Just as this is true for adults, it should be true for children. As a circumcised male, I am entitled to say I'm offended that someone cut off part of my penis after I tried, with my feeble six years, to refuse treatment by all means, including trying to run away naked from the doctor.
"what the effect on circumcised men is of the constant reiteration that they have been "mutilated;"" -- if a society does not want males to hear that they have been mutilated, it should not allow others to mutilate them. Simple as that.
A similar argument to the one you are raising was raised by the AAP in 2010 when they tried to argue for the "ritual genital cutting of female minors", that women who had their genitals altered did not feel mutilated and so to call it female genital mutilation was inflammatory. If this sounds wrong to you, that's exactly how your argument comes across.