Semi-literate media? No

This is an example. People here give the impression that just because the media twists the definition that all people who use a definition differing from 'old english' must be wrong.

I'm not talking about the media. Never reference them again as an example. That's a straw man. I do not argue 'proper usage' on authority of the MEDIA.

I argue it on the basis of the APA and other major psychological organizations. Think of them what you will (I hear Scientology isn't fond of Psychiatry, personally I favour Psychology over Psychiatry and verbal therapy over drugs, but that doesn't mean they TOTALLY suck) they hold a lot of authority over the public. They have links to government, links to law enforcement. You can't glaze over their definitions for medical problems as being 'media'.

If people want to pick 'pedophile' I think that's something they should keep to themself or that should only come up in extensive conversations where all people involved in them have addressed the myriad of meanings and understand the controversy. If people do not understand the controversies, they should not be given a broad definition.

They should be given the most conservative and specific and least-encompassing definition, which as far as I am aware, is the APA's. This is the first one they should learn. Learning about broader (frequently inaccurate) uses of the word which lack authority or consistancy should come AFTERWARDS.

Even though pedophilia isn't anything like cancer, both are medical diagnoses. I would not consult Oxford for cancer even though the word is probably in there, so I would not consult it for pedophilia either.

If you do not think it is a disease, that's fine, neither do I. I see it a fetish, and I don't think any fetishes belong on there. But they're still there, and people deserve to understand this, not be punished because a lot of people like to pretend it doesn't exist there.

To use a comparison, back when homosexuality was on the APA's list, it would be irresponsible to go around saying "hey if you sometimes feel attracted to the same sex you're a homosexual!" Honestly, even now that it's been taken off, it's STILL wrong to do because it is inaccurate.

After all, homosexuality is a PREFERENCE for the same sex, not merely liking them without any major predominance over the same sex. That is more commonly referred to as bisexuality.

This is exactly the same issue. The difference between someone being inclusive of minors versus being exclusionistic towards non-prepubescents.