But we can tell the truth about them, so we’ve got that going for us, which is nice.
Justified scientific scepticism, wide reading, thirty years experience working with mentally disordered people, realisation that emotive subjects often lead to politically convenient pseudo-science masquerading as knowledge, awareness that many offenders are not part of any collected statistics.
I am making no claim to knowledge but pointing out that little valid research has been and is possible.
If we have little reliable information, we should not make specific claims as above to be able to determine the true rate of recidivism, the nature of the offence (sadistic or sexual or both) or any other unknown.
Broad brush statements such as “some assaults may have a sadistic nature rather tan one if sexual attraction” is quite justified and probably true. Claiming that x% of child sex abuse is sadistic and y% being sexual is not justified for the above reasons.
We do know some generalities, but few specifics and it is best not to pretend that we know things that we do not know.
It depends on the context. In common parlance paedophile is synonymous with child sexual abuser, and that is the norm in discourse. If one splits the cases into ‘undesired sexual attraction whether acted on or not to pre pubescent children as paedophilia and pubescent children as hebephila, and add the category of improper sexual relations with a minor over whom one has power, together with people who have no primary sexual attraction to young persons but is otherwise mentally disordered,’ that is too complex for everyday discourse and does not allow real discussion as the subject becomes lost in nit-picking of definitions.
So the word paedophilia has different meanings in different contexts. Were I writing a scientific study I would carefully make all the above specifications, but to do so would stymie all ordinary discussion.