this entire discussion really bothers me. It seems we're saying that men are incapable of listening to reason and deciding whether or not they want to proceed with treatment (surgery or whatever) and that we must therefore protect them by invoking some sort of Orwellian euphemism and call their cancer something other than cancer.
I would argue that it's a man's right to decide if he wants to have surgery, even with a so-called indolent variety of cancer, when I've seen so many men on this site who are diagnosed G6 but who turn out to be G7 or have positive margins, EPE, or other complications. Doctors may advise against surgery, and they should explain all the consequences in equisite detail, and they can explain the possible benefits of AS. That's great.
But, we men seem to put up with a lot just because we're men. When women are told that they don't have the right to choose a procedure, they stand up and say, "Go to the devil. These are our bodies, and it's our decision," and the world supports them and admires them for being such advocates for women's health and women's rights. Even when the procedure is purely elective, such as breast implants.
Being unable to have an erection is sometimes hard to live with, but surgery was my decision, my choice....and certainly a good choice in my particular instance. This was made with input from my wife and my urologist, and I insist that it was my right to be told exactly what was wrong with me, to be given the available options, and to make the choice I made.
If men are being "overtreated," I think the smart answer is education. Once the man knows what he's up against, I say it's his body and his right to lobby for whatever treatment he's comfortable with, and I would never recommend sugarcoating a cancer diagnosis by finding some euphemism. Maybe say that it seems to be "indolent" or "non-aggressive," but to hide the fact that it's a malignancy is a disservice to men, IMO.