Well, let's start with considering why surgery on intersex infants who don't need it is a bad thing!

A big, obvious reason is because there is nothing wrong with having what is deemed "intersex genitalia"; it does not harm children and it's just body diversity. The only reason people do these surgeries is to maintain a fake idea of the two "biological sexes".

But another large issue with these surgeries is that people should not have the ability to alter other people's bodies without their consent like that. Not doctors, not parents, no one. There can be an argument made for life-saving surgeries for young children who cannot make those choices themselves but that is generally not the situation.

Now, on to circumcision: much like intersex genital mutilation, it is very normalized and has a very significant cultural impact! But is it a necessity? Generally, no!

It's also a surgery, often done to children, to alter their genitalia for some sort of cultural norm almost always without any actual necessity.

It can harm people. It's a surgery, there's always risk to surgery and especially in areas with high blood flow and lots of nerves! Complications are not extremely common but they do exist.

There are also benefits to circumcision! For example, it can be easier to keep the genitals clean without a foreskin. That said, its not a necessity and certainly not urgent enough to warrant violating anyone's bodily autonomy.

That said, circumcision itself is not a bad thing. It's just a procedure to remove the foreskin, which is a pretty cool body alteration. It can even be a necessity for some people! Emergency circumcisions are even a thing.

But (non-necessity) circumcision on children who cannot consent is definitely bad just like it would be on anyone else!

Well, actually I've been wondering about this for a long time and it's time to resolve this doubt.

For context, I believe that celestial dragons are circumcised, all without exception, more as a tradition or something that is part of their culture or religion (if they have one).

With that clarified, I wonder if Shanks is circumcised, because assuming what I think is true, I believe Garling would do anything to include Shanks inside Marie Geoise and Shanks, in trying to get information, would accept anything to make them believe that he wants to be part of them.

I think Sahmrock is too, but he arrived in Marie Geoise as a baby, so however they do it (whether they throw a party or do it discreetly), well, he already has one.

I don't know why this doubt suddenly appeared in my mind, but I haven't been able to rest since I thought about it, and well, here I am without censoring my name because I want you to know this strange side of me (Lie, at the time I'm writing this the option to do it anonymously doesn't appear, I'm not sure if I'm doing it too late or early but I couldn't resist anymore).

With nothing more to add, I'll say goodbye. Take care and don't go bald.

P.S. I'm so sorry you have to read this, and I sincerely hope it's not the worst question ever.

…

I’m unaware of the intricacies, but if we’re running with this logic, I’d bet Shanks’s circumcision was scheduled. Probably by Garling right before the Holy Mark ceremony, presumably so he’d heal up on a convenient two-for-one timeline. Shanks took one look at the itinerary and decided he was doing neither, then fled town at speeds previously thought impossible.

I haven’t gone spelunking through the deep lore on this, but it tracks as one of those practices done to mark a cultural divide between peoples. So it wouldn’t be shocking if the Celestial Dragons used it, given they’d be among the few with the resources to do it safely at birth. Roger and his crew, on the other hand, would not give a single solitary damn. You can practically hear Roger laughing at the suggestion.

Honestly, it might’ve been one of the few specific asks that pushed Shanks to wave goodbye and bug out. Besides the murder, racism, slavery and what-not, of course.

Comparing penile circumcision as done in Judaism to FGM is ludicrously misogynistic and serves to compare a very safe procedure (which is presently also very common among non-Jews in many countries for unrelated reasons and is recommended as a treatment or preventative to certain conditions) to something which causes permanent damage and often leads to infections and lifelong difficulty and pain with urination, sex, menstruation, and birth. The two are simply not comparable in how they affect people, even when you take everything else out of the picture. You can't make this comparison without downplaying (or even mocking) the suffering that FGM causes. Then again, I feel like that's probably what OP was trying to do.

And LOL at calling circumcision an "extreme body modification." Idk if OP just knows nothing whatsoever about body modification, but extreme body modification usually means stuff like subdermal horn implants or rib removal.

Composite large costume, the head and body of barkcloth, bast and cane? on an open wicker foundation and painted red-ochre pigment with white spots, with brown and black knotted string sleeves and neck, bast fring and feather top-knot; with fibre?; used in circumcision ceremonies.

Luvale / Wiko / Vale people, Zambia