If I used your standard of (1) about gay and trans issues, banning gays and trans from arguing for their pro positions, then I'd be immediately considered (rightly so) a homophobe, even by people who are lukewarm or moderately against the pro sides on gay and trans issues.

First, I was answering the question of what I believe and why I believe it. Recusal is a form of humility, and yes, I defer more to the more liberal mainstream views than to pro-legalization people. But I don't think recusal is any sort of moral requirement of other people -- though I do think it is politically wise.

Secondly, I exercise or urge no recusal about what it's like to be a pedophile, any more than what it's like to be gay or trans. But there is another party in this discussion, the girl, and I urge recusal on what it's like to be a girl and what is best for girls. That's what makes "girl love" a different cases. I don't suggest that girls should recuse themselves, and also think that adult women can do a decent job of standing in for girls because they used to be girls themselves.

(2) is a complete lie, and that's exactly why most of us consider you dishonest.

I may be right or wrong. Majority opinion does not make something wrong or right, but it is a bit galling that accuse me of being dishonest for believing what 95% of the world believes on that subject.

The consequences of prohibition are never just that someone didn't do X

This sounds like an argument for anarchy. The law is full of prohibitions, as in prohibitions on murder, theft, rape, and (yes) tax evasion. It's something we evaluate on a case-by-case basis. The US tried prohibition with alcohol, and even those who never strayed from their belief that alcohol consumption was evil understood (or many of them did) that the prohibition didn't work for their desired ends -- or had consequences that were worse. So they reversed it. A prohibition on certain hard drugs is a case that's still up in the air. Although there are plenty of injustices in the system, prohibiting murder, theft, and rape on balance are a good thing.

false accusations are a much, much bigger problem than defenses based on alleging consent

I never suggested that we just believe the accused on the subject of whether sexual activity took place -- that requires the usual standard of proof. But if that fact is established, prohibition of adult-child sex means we believe the girl if she says she didn't consent. And yes, we might still punish the man even if she did consent, though I suggest prosecutorial discretion be used more than it is today.