I totally agree that nobody should have had the right to mutilate your genitals. They did that to me too and I hate it. The penis forms as one organ and at birth the foreskin is usually fused to the glans like a fingernail to its finger. You have suffered skin bridges because the doctors never told your parents to be careful, during healing, to stop the cut edges of foreskin from fusing to the glans, which was raw from where they ripped away the fused foreskin so they could cut it off. It happens to quite a lot of circumcised guys but because it's not noticed till later this never shows up in complication statistics. This is just one of the many reasons that circumcision should be stopped.
The claimed benefits of circumcision are a beat up (based on flawed studies) and don't really exist but medical authorities have worked out that the overall complication rate is higher than all the benefits claimed by the pro-cutting advocates. One by one the claims are disproved but the pro-cutting zealots come up with more and keep quoting the old ones despite the evidence against them. For example you have more chance of dying from a circumcision or losing your penis from infection than from penile cancer. The rate of penile cancer is higher in the largely-circumcised USA than in European countries where less than 1% of the male population is circumcised. Plus circumcised men have been found to have penile cancer, mostly on the scar. (Remember this is a very rare disease in intact or circumcised men).
A very recent study in New Zealand followed a cohort of boys through life from birth to age 32. About 40% were circumcised. The intact males had a slightly lower rate of sexually transmitted infections than the circumcised but there was no significant difference.
Using surgery to mutilate the genitals instead of washing in a modern western society makes no sense. Normal intact male genitals are, if anything, easier to wash than female ones and the same substance, smegma collects in the genital folds of both sexes.