Oh, I will cite them as an example.

There is NO straw man here. I was speaking about others, not about you.

If you can't read closely, at least don't accuse me of mischaracterizing you when I was describing those who are not you.

If you're gonna choose sources for usage other than those who are considered authorities on language ( as opposed to authorities on Law, or Psychology,) then I can't do much about how you vette your sources. But it seems willfully ignorant to select your linguistic criteria by using professional jargon out of context.

Note, I never called the APA a media source. I know what the APA's tripartite definition of Pedophilia is. I know that the media's "Pedophile"="Child Molester" doesn't jibe with it; nor does it jibe with any legal definitions of Child Molestation or the requirements which satisfy the criteria for "Sex Offender" status. Because their usage, and PJ's for that matter, is based on ignorance and conflation of the definitions of all the above I call it semi-literate.

You seem to cite Legal and Psychological sources as if they were in agreement with each other. To the best of my knowledge "Pedophilia" is not a category of criminal activity. And when the FBI and others use criteria to determine who is a Sex Offender, they don't use the APA's tripartite definition of "Pedophilia." By confounding the two, you've created a usage unique to yourself and unusable to those who can parse their sources and understand the differences in contextual usage.

Your preference for the most conservative and specific and least-encompassing definition is the reason I call such vocabulary "impoverished."
I recall us discussing the term "weird." The least-encompassing definition would be "destiny" or "fate." But nobody uses it that way because the broader and more-inclusive options allow it to be used in other contexts than its original one.
And in the case of the definition of "Pedophilia," the APA's definition isn't the most conservative and specific and least-encompassing one. The folk-usage that "Pedophile"="Child Molester" is less encompassing than the tripartite definition of "Pedophilia" as a subset of sexual-deviations as categorized by an organization which revises their standards for "mental illness" every few decades or so.

Expecting a newbie to have read-up on the changes in the DSM since the late 50s, and the rifts within the APA over the Philias category seems like a strange requirement when the potential threat to them comes from vigilantes who couldn't care less. Besides the DSM definition is only intended to be used as the APA describes it; as a diagnostic criterion for the trained professional Psychologist. Since you aren't using it as prescribed, you're misusing it.

In fact, citing an APA definition which cannot be used by any authority to restrain or limit the freedoms of anyone deflects from the real potential threats to the liberties of GC members. It serves them ill to limit the discussion of controversies to those of your choosing. The threats to Peds are numerous and varied. They used to be discussed more often and with better-sourced information before you started telling people what terminology they couldn't use. Your petty dispute with the English language is a distraction from a proper discussion of how to best keep our members safe.

Dante