I don't necessarily disagree with what you say regarding our ability to overcome genetic predispositions. However, I don't see the connection between that and the term 'pedophile'.

Words do not have an intrinsic value. The value of a word is in its ability to facilitate the communication of an idea. If a certain word allows you to communicate an idea in such a way that your target audience understands you, then that is all that really matters. In the post that started this thread, it was the misuse of a word that caused the misunderstanding, thus it is clear objectively speaking that your definition of 'pedophile' is not as useful in facilitating communication as the commonly understood definition we all use and that is found in every professionally written dictionary. Using your definition leads to confusion and misunderstanding. So, why not use the standard definition and to heck with all the journalists who are starting to misuse it? If the definition ever changes to the point where using the word in its original meaning leads to misunderstandings, only then is it really necessary to find an alternative.

I guess what I am saying is that I don't see the big deal. A pedophile is a person who is sexually attracted to children; that is the definition found in the dictionary and the definition we all know and understand. Thus, since we have a word we all know and understand, why not use it in the way we all understand?

Im curious though. If you want to stop using the word pedophile for its intended purpose, what word would you replace it? BL only covers those with the capacity to fall in love with boys, it doesn't cover those sexually attracted to boys who feel no emotional attraction nor does it cover those sexually attracted to girls.