Thank you for providing the proper definitions and in answer to the earlier poster, there is no doubt that using the 'pedophile' term gives great cover to the males sexually violating male children. Once it is simply 'pedophilia', the specific nature of it is lost. I can't think of a good example...... but it would be akin to someone with herpes claiming that his/her problem was simply a virus and thus was no different than someone who had a common cold. The meaning would be lost by using such a general term.
Language itself is so very important in this discussion and in fact the group that controls the language will ultimately gain control of the agenda. In other posts here, I've been trying to encourage everyone to avoid the trap. Let me give a very simple and specific example. I personally do not believe that there is any such thing as a homosexual - and in fact, the term did not exist until relatively recently. Where has the word come from? Who is behind its usage? How has it become popularized? I would submit that human sexuality is a characteristic that is innate to all - and that the ways that the sexuality manifest itself can be either normal or deviant. However, by falling into the language trap of using the word 'homosexual', this implies that since it exists, it must have some legitimacy and normality about it. That there are human beings on this planet that engage themselves in homosexual activities is not in question since we know that happens. However, they are not homosexuals.... they are just humans who are expressing their God given sexuality in a deviant manner. So instead of using the term 'homosexual', the more appropriate term would to call him/her 'one who engages in homosexual acts'.