Unintended consequences... will anyone be able to convince a judge that the law means what the law says?

From What Can Be Done About Pedophilia? in The Atlantic (emphasis mine):

In studies, pedophiles show signs that their sexual interests are related to brain structure and that at least some differences existed in their brains before birth. For example, pedophiles show greatly elevated rates of non-right-handedness and minor physical anomalies. Thus, although pedophilia should never be confused with homosexuality, pedophilia can be meaningfully described as a sexual orientation. Scientists have more specifically called it an “age orientation.” Caution has to be used, however, so as not to confuse the scientific use of the phrase “sexual orientation” with its use in law. Because the phrase “sexual orientation” has been used as shorthand (or as a euphemism) for homosexuality, there exist laws and policies barring discrimination on the basis of “sexual orientation.” These were not likely intended to refer to pedophilia.

I'm going to guess that no one is likely to convince a judge that an admitted pedophile shouldn't be discriminated against in the hiring process for, e.g., daycare workers even if, strictly speaking, the law seems to explicitly state that such discrimination is illegal. (I wonder how careful these laws are about explicitly defining a legal definition of "sexual orientation"? e.g. The term `sexual orientation' means homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality. is from a recent US House of Representatives bill - so that bill covers it. Do all explicitly define the term?)

Also interesting in that piece is the following:

Sometimes people like David Goldberg, the author of the essay, are seen or referred to as "gold star pedophiles" or "good pedophiles." Can you explain what those seemingly incongruous terms mean?

It is extremely important not to confuse pedophilia—meaning the sexual interest in children—with actual child molestation. Not every person who experiences sexual attractions to children acts on those attractions. People who are pedophilic but who work to remain celibate their entire lives are being increasingly recognized as needing and deserving all the support society can give them.

What do you think David means when he refers to people being "too scared of the legal and social consequences" to seek help?

Many jurisdictions have passed mandatory reporting regulations for psychologists and other health care providers. Consequently, when someone who thinks he might be a pedophile comes in for counseling or therapy, the psychologist may be compelled by law to report the person to the authorities. That, of course, can lead to loss of the person’s job, family, and everything else. So, these people have simply stopped coming in at all, and instead of getting help to them, we now have pedophiles circulating in society receiving no support at all.

That position on abstinence for pedophiles - where in other circumstances society at large seems to regard abstinence as an impossibility - seems in line with typical Christian views on homosexuality (e.g. the comments of Pope Francis). The comments on mandatory reporting laws also reminded me of how laws restricting where convicted sex offenders are permitted to live may increase their odds of reoffending