I predicted this day was come. In 2005, they dismissed me as crazy for thinking it would. But that moment is here and now. The APA, by insisting there's a difference between having a sexual bent for children and acting on it, has used language to justify its decision which leaves enough open room for interpretation such that it becomes a backdoor for child predators to excuse what they do.
Any misguided good intentions they have aside, this puts them closer and closer to actually becoming pedophilia advocates.
No, it's not fair to assume someone wants children sexually just because they speak to a child. No, it's not fair to assume that someone who is fascinated with a child will automatically resort to kidnapping. But does that mean you completely throw child safety caution to the wind? No. The rule "better safe than sorry" still applies. If you don't trust a particular adult around a child, you decline contact, and be as respectful as possible. That doesn't mean you have to spread unfounded rumors or cause trouble for them, as that would be slander and would be going too far the other way. But you don't disregard the need for child safety either.
However, let's get one thing clear: pedophilia is a mental disorder, not some "orientation" like being left-handed. The use of such language is anchoring, to provide an "evolution keyhole" for later when full-blown advocacy of child sex abuse becomes more culturally feasible.
If someone clearly makes it known they intend to violate children, then it's not "stereotyping" to say they want to do what they themselves have said they wish to do. B4UAct is being very disingenuous when they say it is so. Such ambiguous terminology should be rightfully suspect.
Now, that's not to say everything they're pushing is entirely bad. They do raise a point that "one-size-fits-all" punishment in the justice systems of some states does need reform. There's a difference between the murder of Adam Walsh and a 19-year-old in California who dates a 17-year-old and impregnates her. Different severities warrant different penalties, obviously. But that invites the question: how many states still carry a one-size-fits-all punishment system?