Patrilineal decent doesn't make Moses' offspring Jewish in the sense of the covenant
So you say, but that doesn't make it so.
(that's why they were attacked on the way to Egypt).
Moses' offspring was attacked on the way to Egypt? No, Moses was attacked (Ex 4:24). You like R. Hirsch so much, so you might want to read what he says about that - he cites a reading by Wogue, that it has nothing to do with circumcision. Then you can read the talmud's view. None of it supports your claim about "Jewish in the sense of the covenant."
Converts to what? If being Jewish is being born to a Jewish woman, how can someone convert to having a Jewish mother?
Converts to Judaism regardless of parentage - exactly the point. One can convert to Judaism without having a Jewish mother so your contentions about womb are gone.
. . . Then you're unaware that the sages speak of circumcision as a sacrifice? Are you unaware that Jewish scripture considers circumcision a sacrifice. Do you not know that Jewish scripture considers Abraham's circumcision the precursor to the Akedah? That Jewish scripture says two sacrificial bloods were placed on the doorpost on Passover (lamb and limb)?
No, while a circumcision requires that a person makes a personal (small s) sacrifice, it is not considered a (big S) Sacrifice. The medrash says that two bloods, not two sacrificial bloods were placed there. The blood as a reminder of the circumcision is so that we find favor in God's eyes in the merit of the circumcision of Abraham and that covenant. Nothing about sacrifice. You really don't understand much about this, do you?
Rashi says so. Rabbi Samson Hirsch says so. Rabbi Michael Munk says so. And I know so. So I agree with the foregoing (if you will, but you won't).
Really? Show me the rashi. I'm curious to see that rashi distinguishes between a physical Jew and a Spiritual Jew. I enjoy when R. Hertz writes that the circumcision is just a physical sign of a covenant, not the covenant itself. He mentions "sacrifice" when discussing the role circumcision had among OTHER NATIONS BEFORE ABRAHAM and includes it among the choices of "to whatever origin it might be traced-- whether as a measure safeguarding cleanliness and health (Philo), or to counteract excessive lust (Maimonides) or as a sacrificial symbol -- to Abraham and his descendants
all these conceptions are supplanted..." (emphasis mine). Do you not like these words because they explode your theory? Will you simply dismiss the good Dr Hertz because you don't like what he says?
Again, how can someone convert to having a Jewish mother if they weren't born of a Jewish mother? Can something passed on biologically (natural procreation) be passed on through converting in the presence of the same Jewish men Jewish law cuts out of Jewish identity when it comes through birth to a Jewish woman?
Swing and a miss...again. Someone converts and has the same status as someone with a Jewish mother. In fact a woman who converts can become a Jewish mother. So not being born to a Jewish woman is no hindrance.
What is a Gentile converting to when he converts to Judaism?
Wait. I know this one...that's right...Judaism.
A set of beliefs and a set of practices and a set of values and obligations etc.
How are those related to being born to a Jewish mother
It is related in that it is an equivalent way of becoming a member of the group.
If it's conceded that the original sin was phallic sex, and most knowlegeable Rabbis concede as much (see Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan on the subject), then circumcision is the removal of the organ that made the original sin possible. . . How apropos that Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan says circumcision returns the Jew to the time before the Fall, a time before the first human had a phallus. A time before the manufacture of the phallus (Gen. 2:21).
First, most rabbis do not concede as much. I mean, really, what's next, a Serpent's Seed argument? Second, please cite title and page for Kaplan's saying this. It's not that I doubt you, it is that, well, the only citations I can find to this online (including reading through a few of R. Kaplan's works) are web posts you wrote, or someone who shares your name.
here are some resources
http://www.chabaddayton.com/templates/articlecco_cdo/aid/1101105/jewish/6-The-Naked-Truth.htm
http://www.mesora.org/LettersNov3.htm
I even found a website that quotes R. Kaplan directly! It has him speaking of the sin in the garden "As a result of Adam's sin, man lost the ability to perfect himself, both spiritually and physically. . . the clearest manifestation of this physical imperfection is man's mortality" which would mean that circumcision could not fix anything! But no where in that quote is there any mention of sex, though the author of the web post that quoted it then adds that! Another poster named Shoshana calls him on it but he somehow ignores her point! Such dishonesty. I'm glad we have none of that here.