I'm not trolling. I'm trying to give examples of different degrees of mutilation to understand where circumcision fits on the scale of "accepted body alteration" and "unacceptable body alteration." Is circumcising a newborn much different from having orthodontics placed in an 12 year old's mouth? That is, dental work that is done for purely aesthetic purposes. Or what about a frenectomy on a baby, or a toddler? While a frenectomy function to improve clarity of speech, I would argue clarity of speech is aesthetic in an aural sense. People with a lisp are understood, they can communicate, but their speech isn't considered as "pretty sounding" as those without a lisp. Is a frenectomy controversial in your opinion? If so, you're in the minority. If not, why is it ok to snip out part of a kid's mouth but not ok to snip off part of a kid's penis? A part that serves no benefit, mind you. Unless foreskin does provide a benefit that I'm unaware of.

The distinction is about the purpose of altering someone else’s body. Is there a medical benefit or not? If not, then the answer is leave the other person’s body alone.

I do not know enough about tongue ties or frenectomy’s to comment. I have heard it is over diagnosed and might be done just so parents can feel something was done, but again, I have not delved into it much.

I have delved into cutting off foreskins, and that one, as you even claimed, is all about tribal affiliation. In other words, the procedure is not being done for the medical benefit of the person. At minimum, you would be causing unnecessary pain and risk of infection, but while I am not a urologist, I do know that foreskins have a role in providing lubrication.

Maybe it is mostly inconsequential. But that is irrelevant to the principle that people should be in control of their own body as much as possible. Obviously there is a ton that will not be, but cutting off the foreskin on penis to signify which tribe the male belongs to is a pretty easy one to conclude that violates that principle.

> Unless foreskin does provide a benefit that I'm unaware of.

The lack of willingness of uncircumcised adult men to be circumcised should be a huge clue that there is in fact a benefit to bodily integrity.

> I'm trying to give examples of different degrees of mutilation to understand where circumcision fits on the scale of "accepted body alteration" and "unacceptable body alteration."

We aren't talking about temporary and reversible body alterations, we're talking about amputations.

Amputated parts don't grow back.