It is as safe as any similar procedure, and comes with inherent risk. There’s a reason people talk about “botched circumcisions” which do indeed happen.
The health benefits aren’t even a full percentage point difference. We are talking minuscule differences, and most of it is based on bad science. How can I know this? The studies were often done on grown adults, in third world countries. Disease is already rampant there, and considering rape is so prevalent in many of the areas that anti-rape condoms were created and distributed, there are no social barriers in place to prevent the spread of disease. And finally, they tested to see if there was disease spread almost immediately after the procedure had fully healed. Meaning the men who didn’t get circumcised had been fucking around for a much, much longer time than the circumcised men.
And FGM is a pretty good allegory. We are talking about Male Genital Mutilation, why wouldn’t Female Genital Mutilation be similar? Because it’s normalized in some first world countries? You’re removing double the nerve endings when you remove foreskin vs destroy the clit, I’d say they line up close enough.
Look at it this way, we all agree declawing cats is super safe and has health benefits. But it’s being outlawed all over the place because it’s barbaric. But we still cut baby dicks. It’s pretty fucked up.