I'm not circumcised, however, my mother did pierced my sister's ears as baby/child. If intactivism is against non-consenting childs having their bodys "mutilated" by their fathers decision, don't you think something as banal as ear piercing should be included? In which case, the whole intactivism movement would sound completely silly to me.

Ear piercing is considered a related issue by many intactivists, yes. It’s similar because it involves altering someone’s body in a painful way without their consent.

However, circumcision is a much more important issue (IMO) because it continues to affect the person for the rest of their lives. Without a foreskin, the penis doesn’t function as it’s meant to, and sexual function and pleasure can be impeded.