@The Revolting Man, there is no biblically prescribed method of circumcision. All methods are therefore valid under the Law.
Historically speaking though, there is plenty of evidence that circumcision as actually practiced in the Old Testament was generally less severe than today. For just one example, 1 Maccabees 1:14-15 states that as part of the Jew's apostasy (and note that I am using this as history, not scripture, so we don't need to debate whether it's biblical, I'm not saying this is biblical):
Gymnasiums were a place where men did sporting things completely naked. They were also hotbeds of homosexuality. But as men were naked, it was obvious if they were circumcised. The Jewish men who wanted to get involved in this though had enough of a foreskin left that they were able to "make themselves uncircumcised" - do something with it to look uncircumcised like the Greeks.
The medical techniques used to stretch the remaining foreskin to regrow it to the original length are well documented by ancient authors, and widely discussed in both theological, historical and medical circles. For example, here is a modern medical paper in a plastic surgery journal that discusses these ancient techniques:
Throughout history, demands for restoration of the prepuce after circumcision were most commonly related to the political or religious persecution of the Jewish people. The first evidence for such a procedure is mentioned in the Bible: Under the reign of Antiochus IV (168 BC) Hellenistic ideals...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
This is not "bullshit", it is not an "unfalsifiable claim" - it is backed by substantial historical documentation. It's just a historical fact. Of course you're welcome to ignore all this history if you want to role reverse with
@Earth_is- and have him be the person presenting real history and you be the person pretending history doesn't exist, if you like, that would be amusing for the rest of us!