If nobody is out except convicted offenders who are out by force (most of whom aren't even pedophiles, which is also important to note) then antis can shield themselves in "see, they are a tiny percentage and they're all raypists" and agnostics can't have counterexamples not just to contradict them but to even nuance the antis statements.
The very few who are out not having offended and "seeking a cure" are no more helpful than offenders, as they reinforce the stigma and again give fodder to antis and bad examples to agnostics. Notice that I do believe we can change our orientation. I just don't want to change it myself, don't recommend it to others, and don't think it is the answer to our plight in the general.
That is how gays did it; and although yes, they may have gone too far by now; they're generally not interested in us or even BLs; and it's very questionable if we should try to join in their movement; those pages of their book are something we can copy.
Of course, you should always gauge your possible personal costs. For instance pedophiles who work with minors (not just children, even babies or teens) definitely should not all through the duration of their employment. And though it's never going to be perfect you can try to spot who will be more and less open to you being out. As I mentioned before, I have blocked online two people I know IRL after each shared separate extremely stupid and discriminatory posts about us. I don't need them in my life, period. Not just I don't need to be out to them. I don't need them at all.
And of course if you're going to be out only to be against contact, then I don't know why ever you'd be out. You do harm yourself or at least risk it; and being against contact you're still indistinguishable from an anti and not helpful to us or to children in any way. On that you're totally right.