I suppose many people's blood pressure will rise just seeing my name replying to this, but if you read carefully I think you'll see that many of my criticisms are applicable even for those holding differing views.
I thought the introduction was quite good.
Eighteen points is too many to just list. The list needs internal structure. I think the points themselves are in a haphazard order and could benefit from thinking about them as to how they fit in a sequence of pedophile beliefs:
1. Pedophiles who have no desire to actually act on their attractions (includes matter of choosing the attraction, self-control, being like ordinary people).
2. Pedophiles who do not want to act on their attractions unless/until laws and societal attitudes change.
3. Pedophiles who believe it is OK to act on their desires and attractions within the world as it is today.
The "Virtuous Pedophiles" are in category 1 (as distinct from merely virtuous pedophiles, who are also to be found in category 2). As many of you know, we at VP think that pedophiles in category 1 are the ones who have any hope of garnering sympathy in today's society. Some can argue a path to acceptance for those in category 2. But the chances of getting acceptance for those in category 3 seem incredibly remote, certainly given where we are today. You would do well to pay a lot more attention to the distinction between categories 2 and 3. To me there is a stark contrast between your portrayal in the introduction of how persecuted we pedophiles are and your willingness to argue for adult-child sex with only an occasional caveat about iatrogenic harm.
You do freely acknowledge that your sources are basically your online interactions, with no pretense to representative samples, and that is good. But you don't follow through to how that really does require caution in your conclusions.
In point 1 you acknowledge that pedophiles are normal people, with the same range of personalities as anyone else. But by point 2, pedophiles have suddenly become model citizens of compassion and sensitivity. What about the pedophile equivalents of all those "normal people" who are insensitive, selfish, and not very nice? You are suddenly talking about the nice pedophiles who tend to post on boards like this one. If you framed lots of this as, "Let me tell you about the best pedophiles and their intentions and desires, while recognizing that others may not be so nice and we don't know their relative numbers", that would be more realistic.
Of course among "ordinary people" a great many think adult-child sex is totally wrong. But remember that pedophiles were raised in the same culture, and a great many of them also think it is totally wrong. However misguided you may think they are, recognizing their existence seems vital to painting pedophiles as ordinary people. True, a somewhat smaller proportion are likely to hold that view, but there still are a lot -- we see many of them show up in the "Virtuous Pedophiles" group. Many would not be caught dead reading this GC board -- and I suspect many would not be caught dead reading the VP board either!
You complain about how scientists study pedophiles with criminal pasts and this taints their findings (which you do not like, and also ignoring their use of a criminal control group). But you freely accept the expressed beliefs of the self-selected people who post here and similar boards without worry about representativeness. You quote "The Trauma Myth" but you are using a reinterpretation of her conclusions -- not her own. And the millions of women who feel terrible about their childhood sexual experiences are not even mentioned.
In terms of children's consent, I'd say you have laid out a best case, given the right sort of child and the ideal sort of pedophile. But you don't address how common that combination is or what happens if ideal conditions are not met or whether social policy should be based on the best case or the average or worst cases.
In suggesting that pedophiles don't seek penetration, you imply (I think) that we are talking about prepubescents. In the public mind, young teens are also children, and reasonable people know that they themselves may have an intense interest in penetration. It's worth addressing the ages of children you wish to cover.
That's not a complete list of my thoughts, but I'll leave it there. I do think it is a valiant effort with many good points that I agree with.