The writer is probably correct: The ODU professor’s work is likely an attempt or will have the effect of normalizing pedophilia. But I note something else in the account given.
It is obvious that the science at hand has no answer to the hard question of pedophilia: What is it; how did it come into existence (in an evolutionary sense); how does it occur in individuals; does it require medical treatment (and how might it be treated)? It is clear that the hard question is at present unanswered because the topics that preoccupy the professor are all of a preliminary, definitional nature. That is to say, the professor’s work lies at the very begriming, the earliest stage, of the scientific process.
For this reason, I’m inclined to applaud his efforts in the name of academic freedom. Since pedophilia occurs all around us, it will be helpful, eventually, to understand it in a scientifically robust way. It will be interesting to know the answer to the hard question.
Until we do, I have (a) no problem with social disapproval of and (b) a big problem with social approval of pedophilia. Like the writer of the article, I expect that the immaturity of the science will be overlooked by many who have social agendas to promote.