"Er? Is that a full list?

no, it's not a full list. it's an approximate definition, and in the piece it is found its primary purpose is to provide a reasonable-enough differentiation between the act of coerced, manipulative, or forceful sex - which should rightfully be condemned - on the one hand; and the chosen group identity of "child-lovers", whose primary concerns have to do with the state of being that is "attracted to juvenile girls / boys" and how that attribute manifests, on the other."

And my point is that refraining from force/coercion and manipulation does not require preferential attraction. You have people who don´t have preferential attraction to children but who do not apply force either.

"it at least attempts to differentiate between "those who molest children and those who do not" based on the standards of "lack of malicious intent" (i.e., no coercion, manipulation, or force) and what i would call "altruistic concern" - that is, genuine regard for the person in question beyond immediate gratification."

But my point is that "altruistic concern" is a much higher standard than the standard of "lack of malicious deeds". So which of them is your preferred one?
If two children have casual sex motivated each by sexual gratification and curiosity, consensual on both sides and no coercion or force, but no serious regard for the other either, are both the children "molesting" each other on grounds that they both fail to meet the "altruistic concern"/"seriously in love" standard?