

This policy has earned them the trust of many political actors world wide, so I doubt they would change, as it could result in diplomatic disruptions in many countries. This could be used by the US in attempts to isolate the country. But only time will tell.
I agree with you, pedophiles need treatment. It’s obvious their sexual attraction is not under their conscious control, since the condemnation and judgement of pedophiles is so big, no one would consciously choose to be a pedophile. There are studies which links sexual attraction to children to sexual abuse in childhood too.
I disagree however with watering down, or diluting that with a lighter term, MAP, because it’s inadvertently promoting pedophilia through euphemism. Whether they are a rapist or not, a person can be a pedophile, and that’s it, we need to accept that situation. But the act itself, to have sexual attraction to children, is a dangerous thing, because we know children cannot truly consent.
So the negative charge that comes with the term pedophilia did not come out of the blue, it’s a historical development. Pederasts in Greece certainly did not have this taboo over the word describing them. Creating a “neutral” word only removes this historical meaning describing the act. So the question is, should we use euphemisms for pedophilia?