No easy answer

I know what you mean.

At the same time, I am not sure how uncomfortable I am that pedophilia / paedophilia takes on a verbal meaning.

Take homosexuality. Ostensibly "being" gay means being attracted to the same gender. And when you say "gay sex" you would imply that there is an attraction between two people of the same gender who are having sex. But is it? The stereotypical males in an isolated womanless place (jails, deep sea ships, barracks, monasteries...) having sex, do they really count as gays? Hmmm... Yet, a reasonable observer would realize that these are exceptions and would be very unlikely to happen in an open sexual market. But should gays be offended to be confused with "opportunistic" gays? I am not sure they should. They should certainly make the distinction, especially if it is clear the term is being used more for ignorance than for convenience. But offense? Hmmm...

Same for zoophiles. "Being" a zoophile implies the attraction; but "zoophilic sex", imho, can validly be applied to sex between species without attraction. It is interesting to note that the rate of zoophilia seems to have gone down as societies have become less rural and more urban. This points out to either less opportunistic zoophilia from people essentially not having the "paraphilia" or that the attraction is more prevalent than the current rates of practice attest to, but that urban environments limit its practice.

I think we can say the same, honestly, about pedophilia. "Being" a pedophile implies the attraction, but "pedophilic sex" need not.

Of course, in all three cases I would not include rape. I am only considering consensual sex here.