"But Oxford Dictionaries defines sexual orientation as "A person’s sexual identity in relation to the gender to which they are attracted; the fact of being heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual."

Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. They do no research on sexuality and create no new terminology to reflect the current state of knowledge. They are simply a record of common usage at the time of their last update.

In fact, by necessity there will be a lag time between when a new insight is validated by the experts and when the terms to describe it enter the vocabulary as reflected in a dictionary update.

While the connotations of the word "homosexual" have shifted a lot in the last century do we have any doubt that it wasn't an equivalent of heterosexuality in the years where the dictionary didn't acknowledge this? Heck, I don't even believe that it was different before the sciences came to recognize the similarity any more that I believe that matter wasn't made up of atoms prior to their discovery.

"So by arguing that pedophile is a sexuality are we not saying that first the fundamental definition needs to be changed to accommodate more than just gender and then argue that pedophile is not a mental condition but a sexuality so that we're then entitled to protection as a distinct sexuality?

Treating a valid word as if it were a political strategy smacks of political correctness.

And shouldn't it be the other way around anyway?

Shouldn't our strategies be shaped by the facts recognized by the experts? Do we really want to pretend that we are ignorant of the current state of science just because we believe that its prudent politically?

In reality it is often legal and scientific experts who led the cultural shifts before the public were ready to "vote" the truth in opinion surveys about human rights. There is growing consensus that Pedophilia is an orientation. Every year the retractions of the claim in the face of political pressure are more grudging and endorsed off the record by fewer and fewer. Enough so that the APA's DSM-V clearly stated that absent any extraneous disturbing effects it IS an orientation. ( They subsequently had to "discover" a typo that had passed all reviews and made it to the final printed edition in order to waffle and substitute "minority sexual attraction." )

I believe that it is potentially harmful to feign ignorance of what is known within both the Pedo community and the scientific community. It not only fails to back the scientists who are making demonstrable progress, but the lie will be revealed later on anyway and harms the community's credibility.

"Is it not an easier path to argue that girl lovers and boy lovers are already heterosexual or homosexual and so protected under those sexualities and so focus on disproving that pedophiles don't have a mental condition but are merely attracted to younger females or males?"

I'm not sure that crusading for "heterosexual rights" will be seen as anything deserving support, since heterosexual rights have been the default throughout most of human history.

Letting your coworkers assume you're heterosexual will not make them more accepting when you bring your 9 year old LGF to the office's "family picnic" and kiss her. The fact is that they know and you know that your romantic/sexual attraction to children is not shared by any "heterosexuals" they know. So when demanding human rights recognition for your sexuality you must be willing to call it by name rather than simply confuse the str8ts.

To the str8ts there is a cut off between accidental variations in human appearances and functional differences denoting different categories. We all agree that a preference for brown eyes doesn't tell you anything about the relationship dynamic. Its a "to each their own" sort of thing.

Even if the law doesn't discriminate it is important not to pretend that two guys are simply enacting a hetero romance in drag when they're in love. There is a different relationship dynamic at play.

And while I would love to see the law cease discriminating against some biological adults by legally defining them as "children." I would also like to see it recognize the rights of children as well and understand that there is nothing wrong in finding children attractive in a romantic/sexual way.

I think though that asking for this is a lot different from asking that a 19 year old be allowed to drink or recognizing the preference for young women in their late teens/early twenties as just another age preference.

If we want to demand rights we must be willing to name them.

Dante