OK, I'll bite.

Lets assert that Homosexuality and Heterosexuality aren't really "sexualities."

Both parties are attracted to humans. Its just that some men are attracted only to humans who have the accidental feature of being female, while others are attracted exclusively to males. ( And others to a combo. )

To remove the Pedophile preference as a sexuality is to create such a broad construct as to deny orientation altogether.

Now THAT'S not a bad thing per-se. And I think that "consenting human" should be the only necessary legal qualification. ( TPKA Humboldt may disagree on the last condition. )

Further, the idea that an expression of attraction MUST be defining reduces the human spirit and devalues the one love that might be idiosyncratic but which is no less real. ( Does having str8t sex once make someone Bi? If I've loved only one person of my own gender was it not love because the "orientation" seems absent? )

But until the day comes that "consenting human" is the only relevant factor; we will probably speak of orientations, and Pedophile is one of them.

Yes, while a few are general CLers, most break into either the GLer camp or the BLer one. And BLers have SOME overlap with Homosexuals.

But since there are a significant number who have NO attraction for men, but who are a combination of Teleio-Hetero and BLer, then we should recognize it as an orientation in its own right.

The APA has pretty much done just that. They recognize that it is a minority sexual attraction which doesn't conflate with mental illnesses which struggle with either the "urges" or the identity.

I'm with them in the "walks like a duck, quacks like a duck" assessment of Pedophile sexuality.

Dante